On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 2:34 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:30:03PM +, Michael Matz wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > then this leads to wrong debug info showing a value for 'a' that never
> > > existed.
> >
> > var-tracking was
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:30:03PM +, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > then this leads to wrong debug info showing a value for 'a' that never
> > existed.
>
> var-tracking was specifically created so that the base-vars of SSA names
> aren't necessary
Hi,
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
> then this leads to wrong debug info showing a value for 'a' that never
> existed.
var-tracking was specifically created so that the base-vars of SSA names
aren't necessary for debug info anymore ...
> when you build this with -O -g
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:16 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/21/18 7:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:12 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/20/18 6:42 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> this bug report is about cris generating worse code since tree-ssa. The
>
On 11/21/18 7:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:12 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/20/18 6:42 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this bug report is about cris generating worse code since tree-ssa. The
>>> effect is also visible on x86-64. The symptom is that the work
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:12 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 11/20/18 6:42 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this bug report is about cris generating worse code since tree-ssa. The
> > effect is also visible on x86-64. The symptom is that the work horse of
> > adler32.c (from zlib) needs spills
On 11/20/18 6:42 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this bug report is about cris generating worse code since tree-ssa. The
> effect is also visible on x86-64. The symptom is that the work horse of
> adler32.c (from zlib) needs spills in the inner loop, while gcc 3 did not,
> and those spills
On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> I'm wondering about testcase: should I add an x86-64 specific that tests
> for no stack accesses, or would that be too constraining in the future?
>
> Regstrapped on x86-64-linux, no regressions. Okay for trunk?
By the way, this patch helps x86-64
Hi,
this bug report is about cris generating worse code since tree-ssa. The
effect is also visible on x86-64. The symptom is that the work horse of
adler32.c (from zlib) needs spills in the inner loop, while gcc 3 did not,
and those spills go away with -fno-tree-reassoc.
The underlying
