Hi Jakub,
> 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?
thanks for the list. A sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap with the whole
set is now running; expect results in about two hours.
>> 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.
It certainly is: I've filed PR tree-optimization/83410.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
