On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:51 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 2:32 AM Yichao Yu via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 8:16 PM Yichao Yu <yyc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:41 PM Yichao Yu <yyc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:26 PM Yichao Yu <yyc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:25 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Yichao Yu <yyc1...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:12 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:37 AM Yichao Yu > > > > > > > > > <yyc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:54 PM Yichao Yu > > > > > > > > > > <yyc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current logic seems to be comparing the whole > > > > > > > > > > > > > attribute tree between the callee > > > > > > > > > > > > > and caller (or at least the tree starting from the > > > > > > > > > > > > > target attribute). > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is unnecessary and causes strange dependency of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the indirection > > > > > > > > > > > > > elimination on unrelated properties like > > > > > > > > > > > > > `noinline`(PR95780) and `visibility`(PR95778). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it fix PR95780 and PR95778? Can you include > > > > > > > > > > > > testcases for them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK so replacing > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/b8ce8129a560f64f8b2855c4a3812b7c3c0ebf3f#diff-e2d535917af8555baad2e9c8749e96a5 > > > > > > > > > > with/adding to the test the following one should work. I > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > couldn't get test to run though...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you try the enclosed testcases? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assembly produced are the following with my patch and if I > > > > > > > > understand it correctly those should work. Unfortunately I > > > > > > > > don't know > > > > > > > > how to actually run the test as a test (if that makes > > > > > > > > sense....). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Place 2 files under gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386 and in GCC > > > > > > > build directory, do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32,}' > > > > > > > i386.exp=pr95778-*.c" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally got it start running after installing dejagnu... > > > > > It seems to be runing something unrelated though.... > > > > > > > > > > e.g. Running > > > > > /home/yuyichao/projects/contrib/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/builtins.exp > > > > > ... > > > > > Running > > > > > /home/yuyichao/projects/contrib/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/execute.exp > > > > > > > > OK it seems that the `-*.c` syntax doesn't work for me somehow, there > > > > are still a lot of unrelated outputs but when I replaced the * with 1 > > > > and 2 separately I can confirm that there are only expected pass with > > > > my patch and there are some unexpected failures when the patch is > > > > reverted. > > > > > > And the updated patch is > > > > OK. > I fixed up the obvious formatting goofs and constructed a ChangeLog and have > pushed the change to the trunk.
Thank you. > jeff > > >
