On 3 October 2016 at 20:36, Doug Gilmore <doug.gilm...@imgtec.com> wrote:
>>From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 11:23 AM
>>To: Doug Gilmore
>>Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>Subject: Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in
>>duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439
>>
>>On 3 October 2016 at 18:07, Doug Gilmore <doug.gilm...@imgtec.com> wrote:
>>>>From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>>>>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:05 AM
>>>>To: Doug Gilmore
>>>>Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>>>Subject: Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in
>>>>duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439
>>>>
>>>>On 2 October 2016 at 23:05, Doug Gilmore <doug.gilm...@imgtec.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Christophe,
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.l...@linaro.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 7:57 AM
>>>>>> To: Doug Gilmore
>>>>>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/77808, ICE in
>>>>>> duplicate_ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630 starting with r240439
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Doug,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I can confirm that your patch fixes the ICE I was seeing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, the new testcase does not pass on low end
>>>>>> architectures:
>>>>>> cc1: warning: -fprefetch-loop-arrays not supported for this target
>>>>>> (try -march switches)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you add a guard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>> I updated the test to only run on X86, MIPS and AARCH64. Is that OK?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid not.
>>>>
>>>>The ICE occurred on some arm targets. By "low end" I meant armv5t for
>>>>example, as opposed to armv7t.
>>>>Is there a suitable effective target?
>>> I'll need to investigate that. BTW, gcc.dg/pr53550.c contains:
>>> /* PR tree-optimization/53550 */
>>> /* { dg-do compile } */
>>> /* { dg-options "-O2 -fprefetch-loop-arrays -w" } */
>>>
>>> int *
>>> foo (int *x)
>>> {
>>> int *a = x + 10, *b = x, *c = a;
>>> while (b != c)
>>> *--c = *b++;
>>> return x;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Is it also failing on armv5t? I suppose it would.
>>>
>>It doesn't, but that's probably thanks to -w
> Sounds like we don't need add guards then, it is just a matter
> of adding -w to the command line.
>
> Does that work for you?
>
Yes, it does, I verified all the configurations I normally validate.
Adding "-w" to the testcase does the trick.
Thanks,
Christophe
> Thanks,
>
> Doug
>>
>>Christophe
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Christophe
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug
