On 18 August 2015 at 10:25, Alex Velenko <alex.vele...@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 31/07/15 12:04, Alex Velenko wrote: >> >> On 29/07/15 23:14, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> On 07/28/2015 12:18 PM, Alex Velenko wrote: >>>> >>>> On 21/04/15 06:27, Jeff Law wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/20/2015 01:09 AM, Shiva Chen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your advice. >>>>>> >>>>>> can_replace_by.patch is the new patch to handle both cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.ori is the original jump2 rtl dump >>>>>> >>>>>> pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.patch_can_replace_by is the jump2 rtl dump >>>>>> after patch can_replace_by.patch >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you help me to review the patch? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. This looks pretty good. >>>>> >>>>> I expanded the comment for the new function a bit and renamed the >>>>> function in an effort to clarify its purpose. From reviewing >>>>> can_replace_by, it seems it should have been handling this case, but >>>>> clearly wasn't due to implementation details. >>>>> >>>>> I then bootstrapped and regression tested the patch on x86_64-linux-gnu >>>>> where it passed. I also instrumented that compiler to see how often >>>>> this code triggers. During a bootstrap it triggers a couple hundred >>>>> times (which is obviously a proxy for cross jumping improvements). So >>>>> it's triggering regularly on x86_64, which is good. >>>>> >>>>> I also verified that this fixes BZ64916 for an arm-non-eabi toolchain >>>>> configured with --with-arch=armv7. >>>>> >>>>> Installed on the trunk. No new testcase as it's covered by existing >>>>> tests. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks,, >>>>> jeff >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I see this patch been committed in r222256 on trunk. Is it okay to port >>>> this to fsf-5? >>> >>> It's not a regression, so backporting it would be generally frowned >>> upon. If you feel strongly about it, you should ask Jakub, Joseph or >>> Richi (the release managers) for an exception to the general policy. >>> >>> jeff >>> >> Hi Jakub, >> Can this commit be ported to fsf-5? It fixed gcc.target/arm/pr43920-2.c >> at the time, so I think it is a good idea to port. Please, see >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916 >> Kind regards, >> Alex > > > Ping! > > Currently this test is passed on fsf-trunk, but not passed on fsf-5, so I > think it is a regression on fsf-5:
That does not make it a regression, it is only a regression if a version prior to 5 passes, how does this test behave on 4.9? Cheers /Marcus
