[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-02-01 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-29 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Fri Jan 29 23:01:54 2016 New Revision: 233001 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233001&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR 69355] Correct hole detection when total_scalarization fails 2016-

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #23) > The testcase I posted to comment #19 fails also on the 4.9 branch so I > will test and commit the patch there too. > > Jakub, can I close the bug afterwards or

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-28 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor --- The testcase I posted to comment #19 fails also on the 4.9 branch so I will test and commit the patch there too. Jakub, can I close the bug afterwards or do you want to backport the gcc/tree-dfa.c (the patc

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-28 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Thu Jan 28 18:04:00 2016 New Revision: 232937 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232937&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR 69355] Correct hole detection when total_scalarization fails 2016-

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-27 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Wed Jan 27 14:51:17 2016 New Revision: 232877 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232877&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR 69355] Correct hole detection when total_scalarization fails 2016-

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-26 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #19) > Because the reduced testcase from comment #10 does not fail for me (on > revision 232662), I have tried to use creduce myself but have never > ended up with any

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-26 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor --- Because the reduced testcase from comment #10 does not fail for me (on revision 232662), I have tried to use creduce myself but have never ended up with anything useful (I got source with undefined behavior

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

2016-01-22 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor --- The reduced testcase does not fail for me for some reason, but the original one does. In any event, the problem is that an grp_unscalarized_data flag is zero even though evidently it should not be. That ha