On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:31:07PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> > Here it is everything in patch form, in case some volunteers are willing to
> > test it on their targets, because we need faster turn-arounds for this.
>
> thanks for that: it's easy to loose track in this maze ;-)
True. What I'm regtesting (bootstraps already done) on
{x86_64,i686,powerpc64{,le}}-linux now is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00811.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00808.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42861
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42866
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00794.html
set. Does pr69102.c FAIL with that set?
> I've just bootstrapped sparc-sun-solaris2.11 with your patch and this one:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00794.html
>
> The bootstrap succeeds, but the gcc.c-torture/compile/pr69102.c
> regression persists. Besides, I see
>
> +FAIL: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c scan-tree-dump-times graphite "2
> loops carried no dependency" 1 (found 0 times)
> +FAIL: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized
> "loopfn.1" 4 (found 0 times)
> +FAIL: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-8.c scan-tree-dump-times graphite "5
> loops carried no dependency" 1 (found 0 times)
>
> which is most likely unrelated (I upgraded the tree from r255584 to
> r255603).
Yeah, these are almost certainly unrelated.
Jakub
