On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:26:08PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > So, Vlad, Steven, do you think that this time I have re-computed all > that is necessary? Do you think the patch is OK? > > Thanks a lot and sorry for the breakage,
I'm afraid there are still issues left. Last night I was bootstrapping (first r204752, then when it failed also r204751) with: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01268.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01437.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/txturet7Hr1Ws.txt http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01553.html patches applied on i686-linux (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02625.html on how I configure/build such a gcc on x86_64-linux host), and while it bootstrapped just fine, there were hundreds of regressions in the vectorization tests, which worked fine if compiled with stage1 cc1/cc1plus, but with stage2/3 cc1/cc1plus behaved strangely. When I've reverted the ira.c part of r204698 and bootstrapped/regtested with all those patches again, all the problems went away. Valgrind hasn't revealed any undefined uses caused by those patches. As it doesn't affect bootstrap/regtest of unpatched gcc, it is not an immediate blocker (well, would be if/once the patches make it in), but silent wrong code (sure, just suspected) is always very important. Can you please have a look? > 2013-11-04 Martin Jambor <mjam...@suse.cz> > > PR rtl-optimization/10474 > * ira.c (interesting_dest_for_shprep): New function. > (split_live_ranges_for_shrink_wrap): Likewise. > (find_moveable_pseudos): Move calculation of dominance info, > df_analysios and the final anlyses to... > (ira): ...here, call split_live_ranges_for_shrink_wrap. > > testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/pr10474.c: New testcase. > * gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c: Likewise. > * gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c: Likewise. Jakub
