Processed: tag gcc report as sarge only
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 283031 + sarge Bug#283031: libgcc1: Missing Depends: libunwind7 [ia64] breaks many things There were no tags set. Tags added: sarge > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
[Bug target/18823] [3.4 regression] [ia64-linux] ICE in ia64_st_address_bypass_p, at config/ia64/ia64.c:7387
-- What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Known to work|3.3.5 |3.3.5 4.0.0 Target Milestone|--- |3.4.4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18823 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
[Bug rtl-optimization/16052] [3.4/4.0 Regression] strength reduction produces wrong code
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04 13:43 --- Fails on all ix86 -- What|Removed |Added GCC build triplet|i386-unknown-netbsdelf2.0F | GCC host triplet|i386-unknown-netbsdelf2.0F | GCC target triplet|i386-unknown-netbsdelf2.0F | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16052 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04 13:56 --- $ ./xgcc -B. -O2 t.c $ ./a.out 1 2 5476394742290156872 $ ./xgcc -B. -O2 t.c -fno-tree-dce $ ./a.out 1 2 4 -- What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2004-11-27 22:56:51 |2004-12-04 13:56:43 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04
14:40 ---
Simpler test case:
#include
#include
typedef long *GEN;
static inline long *
stoi(long n)
{
long * z=(long *)malloc(sizeof(long));
*z=n;
return z;
}
void
divisors_bug(long * *t, long e)
{
long j;
long **d, **old_d, **act_d, **tmp;
d = t;
*++d = stoi(1);
for (old_d=t,j=e; j; j--)
{
for (act_d=d, tmp=old_d; tmp < act_d; )
*++d = stoi(**++tmp * 2);
old_d=act_d;
}
}
int main(void)
{
long *t[4];
long i;
divisors_bug(t,2);
for(i=1;i<4;i++)
printf("%ld ",*t[i]);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
When I comment out the first PHI-OPT pass, this gives:
1 2 4
With PHI-OPT not commented out, I get:
1 2 0
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04 14:59 --- (In reply to comment #8) > Simpler test case: > > When I comment out the first PHI-OPT pass, this gives: > 1 2 4 > > With PHI-OPT not commented out, I get: > 1 2 0 Are you sure because I cannot reproduce it when comment out the frist phiopt pass. This is on ppc- darwin by the way. I still get a bus error. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04 17:43 --- DOM is defintely messing it up before if (d_2 > tmp_14) goto ; else goto ; after: if (t_6 < d_8) goto ; else goto ; the comparision changed -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
[Bug tree-optimization/18694] [4.0 regression] loop miscompilation at -O1 (-ftree-ch)
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-04
23:26 ---
Looks like a jump threading problem. Given this test case:
void
divisors_bug(long *t, long e)
{
long int *d2;
long int *tmp;
long int *act_d;
long int *old_d;
long int *d;
long int j;
int t1, t2;
d = t;
++d;
*d = 1;
old_d = t;
j = e;
outer_loop_test:
if (j != 0) goto outer_loop_entry; else goto outer_loop_exit;
outer_loop_entry:
d2 = d;
tmp = old_d;
inner_loop_test:
if (d <= tmp) goto inner_loop_exit;
d2++;
tmp++;
t1 = *tmp;
t2 = t1 * 2;
*d2 = t2;
goto inner_loop_test;
inner_loop_exit:
j = j - 1;
old_d = d;
d = d2;
goto outer_loop_test;
outer_loop_exit:
return;
}
I have the following in one of the dominator passes:
divisors_bug (t, e)
{
void inner_loop_exit = <<< error >>>;
void inner_loop_test = <<< error >>>;
void outer_loop_exit = <<< error >>>;
void outer_loop_entry = <<< error >>>;
void outer_loop_test = <<< error >>>;
int t2;
int t1;
long int j;
long int * d;
long int * old_d;
long int * act_d;
long int * tmp;
long int * d2;
long int D.1484;
long int D.1483;
# BLOCK 0
# PRED: ENTRY
d_8 = t_6 + 8B;
# TMT.0_26 = V_MAY_DEF ;
*d_8 = 1;
if (e_10 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
# SUCC: 2 5
# BLOCK 1
# PRED: 4
outer_loop_test:;
if (j_14 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
# SUCC: 2 5
# BLOCK 2
# PRED: 0 1
# TMT.0_23 = PHI ;
# j_3 = PHI ;
# old_d_2 = PHI ;
# d_1 = PHI ;
# TMT.0_16 = PHI ;
# tmp_15 = PHI ;
# d2_13 = PHI ;
:;
if (d_1 <= tmp_15) goto inner_loop_exit; else goto ;
# SUCC: 4 3
# BLOCK 3
# PRED: 2 3
# TMT.0_12 = PHI ;
# d2_11 = PHI ;
# tmp_5 = PHI ;
:;
d2_17 = d2_11 + 8B;
tmp_18 = tmp_5 + 8B;
# VUSE ;
D.1483_19 = *tmp_18;
t1_20 = (int) D.1483_19;
t2_21 = t1_20 * 2;
D.1484_22 = (long int) t2_21;
# TMT.0_27 = V_MAY_DEF ;
*d2_17 = D.1484_22;
if (d_1 <= tmp_18) goto inner_loop_exit; else goto ;
# SUCC: 4 3
# BLOCK 4
# PRED: 3 2 6
# TMT.0_9 = PHI ;
# d2_7 = PHI ;
inner_loop_exit:;
j_14 = j_3 - 1;
goto (outer_loop_test);
# SUCC: 1
# BLOCK 5
# PRED: 1 0
:;
return;
# SUCC: EXIT
# BLOCK 6
# PRED:
# TMT.0_23 = PHI <>;
# j_3 = PHI <>;
# old_d_2 = PHI <>;
# d_1 = PHI <>;
# TMT.0_16 = PHI <>;
# tmp_15 = PHI <>;
# d2_13 = PHI <>;
goto (inner_loop_exit);
# SUCC: 4
}
which we turn into this:
divisors_bug (t, e)
{
void inner_loop_exit = <<< error >>>;
void inner_loop_test = <<< error >>>;
void outer_loop_exit = <<< error >>>;
void outer_loop_entry = <<< error >>>;
void outer_loop_test = <<< error >>>;
int t2;
int t1;
long int j;
long int * d;
long int * old_d;
long int * act_d;
long int * tmp;
long int * d2;
long int D.1484;
long int D.1483;
# BLOCK 0
# PRED: ENTRY
d_8 = t_6 + 8B;
# TMT.0_26 = V_MAY_DEF ;
*d_8 = 1;
if (e_10 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
# SUCC: 2 5
# BLOCK 1
# PRED: 4
outer_loop_test:;
if (j_14 != 0) goto ; else goto ;
# SUCC: 6 5
# BLOCK 2
# PRED: 0
# TMT.0_23 = PHI ;
# j_3 = PHI ;
# old_d_2 = PHI ;
# d_1 = PHI ;
# TMT.0_16 = PHI ;
# tmp_15 = PHI ;
# d2_13 = PHI ;
:;
if (d_1 <= tmp_15) goto inner_loop_exit; else goto ;
# SUCC: 4 3
# BLOCK 3
# PRED: 2 3
# TMT.0_12 = PHI ;
# d2_11 = PHI ;
# tmp_5 = PHI ;
:;
d2_17 = d2_11 + 8B;
tmp_18 = tmp_5 + 8B;
# VUSE ;
D.1483_19 = *tmp_18;
t1_20 = (int) D.1483_19;
t2_21 = t1_20 * 2;
D.1484_22 = (long int) t2_21;
# TMT.0_27 = V_MAY_DEF ;
*d2_17 = D.1484_22;
if (d_1 <= tmp_18) goto inner_loop_exit; else goto ;
# SUCC: 4 3
# BLOCK 4
# PRED: 3 2 6
# TMT.0_9 = PHI ;
# d2_7 = PHI ;
inner_loop_exit:;
j_14 = j_3 - 1;
goto (outer_loop_test);
# SUCC: 1
# BLOCK 5
# PRED: 1 0
:;
return;
# SUCC: EXIT
# BLOCK 6
# PRED: 1
# TMT.0_23 = PHI ;
# j_3 = PHI ;
# old_d_2 = PHI ;
# d_1 = PHI ;
# TMT.0_16 = PHI ;
# tmp_15 = PHI ;
# d2_13 = PHI ;
:;
goto (inner_loop_exit);
# SUCC: 4
}
Note that when optimizing basic block 3, we do a jump thread:
Optimizing statement :;
Optimizing statement d2_17 = d2_11 + 8B;
Optimizing statement tmp_18 = tmp_5 + 8B;
Optimizing statement D.1483_19 = *tmp_18;
Optimizing statement t1_20 = (int) D.1483_19;
Optimizing statement t2_21 = t1_20 * 2;
Optimizing statement D.1484_22 = (long int) t2_21;
Optimizing statement *d2_17 = D.1484_22;
Optimizing statement if (d_1 <= tmp_18) goto inner_loop_exit; else goto ;
Threaded jump 1 --> 2 to 6
This is the only transformation we do in DOM in this case, and apparently
it's not a correct one (but it's late so I'll leave it for Pinski to look
at it more closely :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
Bug#279185: Confirming fixed
Thank you. -- Ken Foskey
