http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 1 13:50:30 2013
New Revision: 203062
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203062&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58574
* config/s390/s390.c (s390_chunkify_start): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Thanks, are you going to post it to gcc-patches and commit then? Can I post
> the 4.8 patch there afterwards, or do you prefer some different alternative
> fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #13 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Tue Oct 1 13:33:02 2013
New Revision: 203060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203060&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Jakub Jelinek
Andreas Krebbel
PR targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thanks, are you going to post it to gcc-patches and commit then? Can I post
the 4.8 patch there afterwards, or do you prefer some different alternative for
4.8?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30938|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The 4.8 version of the patch bootstrapped/regtested fine on both s390x-linux
and s390-linux, both configured with --with-arch=z10 --with-tune=zEC12.
Andreas, could you please bootstrap/regtest some 4.9 versio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that I can't test this easily on the trunk, the partition I have access to
has just 2 CPUs and 1GB of RAM, bootstrap/regtest would be very slow if it
worked at all, but am testing the 4.8 version of the p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30939
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30939&action=edit
gcc48-pr58574.patch
Yeah, perhaps. I'm attaching 4.8 version of the patch, which wasn't using
tablejump_p at all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 30938
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30938&action=edit
Alternate fix - v2
Since tablejump_p is checking for JUMP_P anyway we could move the check even
outside the jum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 30935 [details]
> Alternate fix
>
> Another possibility. If the check is there really just to prevent handling
> tablejumps, I wonder why we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Thanks for tracking this down!
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I'd say the bug is in s390_chunkify_start:
> if (GET_CODE (pat) == PARALLEL && XVECLEN (pat, 0) > 2)
> pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30935
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30935&action=edit
Alternate fix
Another possibility. If the check is there really just to prevent handling
tablejumps, I wonder wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30934
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30934&action=edit
Possible fix
Possible fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say the bug is in s390_chunkify_start:
if (GET_CODE (pat) == PARALLEL && XVECLEN (pat, 0) > 2)
pat = XVECEXP (pat, 0, 0);
Dunno what exactly the > 2 condition has been added for, JUMP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
Summary|[4.9 Regression]
16 matches
Mail list logo
