On 11/11/19 7:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On 11/7/19 5:48 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 05.11.19 13:45, Richard Biener wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 7.5 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.5.0-RC-20191105/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 277823.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
{x86_64,i586,ppc64le,s390x,aarch64}-linux. Please test it
and report any issues to bugzilla.
If all goes well, I'd like to release 7.5 on Thursday, November 14th.
With a distribution build (Ubuntu) on amd64, i386, armhf, arm64, ppc64el and
s390x, I don't see any regressions in the GCC testsuite (compared to 7.4.0),
except for two issues on ppc64el:
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr87532.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/build/gcc-7-8odB_r/gcc-7-7.4.0/src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr87532.c:45:27:
warning: format '%d' expects argument of type 'int', but argument 2 has type
'size_t {aka long unsigned int}' [-Wformat=]
is a new test, and only caused by default hardening settings.
PASS: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-4.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1
loops" 1
PASS: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "gaps requires
scalar epilogue loop" 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-4.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorizing
stmts using SLP" 1
I finally bisected this to r275208:
2019-08-30 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de <mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
Backport from mainline
2019-05-27 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de
<mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
PR tree-optimization/90637
* tree-ssa-sink.c (statement_sink_location): Honor the
computed sink location for single-uses.
* gcc.dg/gomp/pr90637.c: New testcase.
2019-06-21 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de
<mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
PR tree-optimization/90930
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (rewrite_expr_tree_parallel): Set visited
flag on new stmts to avoid re-processing them.
2019-05-15 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de
<mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
PR c/90474
* c-common.c (c_common_mark_addressable_vec): Also mark
a COMPOUND_LITERAL_EXPR_DECL addressable similar to
c_mark_addressable.
2019-04-25 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de
<mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
PR middle-end/90194
* match.pd: Add pattern to simplify view-conversion of an
empty constructor.
* g++.dg/torture/pr90194.C: New testcase.
2019-04-24 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de
<mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
PR middle-end/90213
* gimple-fold.c (fold_const_aggregate_ref_1): Do multiplication
by size and BITS_PER_UNIT on poly-wide-ints.
2019-04-15 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de
<mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
PR tree-optimization/90071
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (init_range_entry): Do not pick up
abnormal operands from def stmts.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr90071.c: New testcase.
2019-03-13 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de
<mailto:rguenther%40suse.de>>
PR middle-end/89677
* tree-scalar-evolution.c (simplify_peeled_chrec): Do not
throw FP expressions at tree-affine.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr89677.c: New testcase.
This looks rather familiar, actually. I seem to recall an SLP degradation
from a change to tree-ssa-sink.c on trunk this release. Richi, could there be
a missing backport here?
Not sure - it's reassoc that messes up things here and a
--param tree-reassoc-width=1 "fixes" the failure. For PR90930 I
restricted this to the last pass instance (but only on trunk).
Does it also fail on the GCC 8 and 9 branches? Ah, on GCC 8 at least
the default target setting for this seems to be 1 (it's non-FP,
maybe you changed that), with explicit --param tree-reassoc-width={2,3,4}
it also fails the same way.
OK; yes, I think one of our team did some refining of the reassoc
parameters in that timeframe, so this makes sense.
It's a bit late to try thinking about backporting this change
but I'll now consider it for GCC 9 at least.
So IMHO a latent issue, somehow the rev. triggered "inconsistent"
reassoc for the testcase. I'm going to leave it as-is for GCC 7.5
(with the testsuite regression).
Are you fine with that? An explicit --param tree-reassoc-width=1
on the testcase also would work for me if you prefer that.
I am fine with leaving the testcase regressed; we have a good
explanation and this isn't a serious issue for users. Thanks for
investigating!
Bill
Thanks,
Richard.
