Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > Bernd, thanks. At this point I think I will avoid opening this can of > worms and not worry about backporting the test case.
Sorry for the late answer (catching up on a big backlog), but the testcase was originally added for an optimisation rather than a bug fix. It sounds like it tripped an ICE, so it should be safe to backport as a compile-only test with no dg-additional-options and no dg-finals. Thanks, Richard > > Thanks, > Bill > > On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 19:18 +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:56:15, David Edelsohn wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:44 PM, BIll Schmidt >> > <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> As described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542, a >> >> new test case (gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c) was added in 4.9. This >> >> exposes a bug on PowerPC little endian for extracting an element from a >> >> V4SF value that goes back to 4.8. The following patch fixes the >> >> problem. >> >> >> >> Tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Ok to >> >> commit to trunk? I would also like to commit to 4.8 and 4.9 as soon as >> >> possible to be picked up by the distros. >> > >> > This is okay everywhere. >> > >> >> I would also like to backport gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c to 4.8 to >> >> provide regression coverage. >> > >> > You should ask Bernd and the RMs. Was the bug fix that prompted the >> > new testcase backported to all targets? >> > >> > Thanks, David >> >> actually I only added the check_vect to that test case, but that >> exposed a bug on Solaris-9. >> >> See https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=207668. >> >> That was in the -fdump-rtl-combine-details handling, where >> fprintf got a NULL value passed for %s, which ICEs on Solaris9. >> >> So if you backport that test case, be sure to check that one too. >> >> Originally the test case seems to check something for the aarch64-target. >> See https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=205712. >> >> Obviously the patch in rtlanal.c (set_noop_p) was never backported to >> the 4.8 branch. >> Maybe Tejas who originally wrote that test case, can explain, if it makes >> sense to backport this fix too. >> >> >> Thanks >> Bernd. >>
