On 07/10/2024 10:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 11:04, Torbjorn SVENSSON
wrote:
On 2024-10-07 10:53, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi Torbjorn,
2. All other the test cases in the list above: These need to be
adapted to the change introduced in r15-3606-g7d6c6a0d15c to
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 11:04, Torbjorn SVENSSON
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024-10-07 10:53, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> > Hi Torbjorn,
> >
> > On 07/10/2024 09:08, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> There are 3 test cases that are fixed with these 2 commits, but there
> >> is also a bunch that is
On 2024-10-07 10:53, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
Hi Torbjorn,
On 07/10/2024 09:08, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
There are 3 test cases that are fixed with these 2 commits, but there
is also a bunch that is marked as new fails.
Looking at the test cases that fail, there are 2 different kinds
Hi Torbjorn,
On 07/10/2024 09:08, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
There are 3 test cases that are fixed with these 2 commits, but there is
also a bunch that is marked as new fails.
Looking at the test cases that fail, there are 2 different kinds of
failures.
1. gcc.target/arm/attr_thumb.c: This
Hi All,
FWIW, the previous patch (gcc-15-4066-g7766a2c1eb6) broke bootstrap on
arm-linux-gnueabihf. (reported via
https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1364)
Christophe
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 10:10, Torbjorn SVENSSON
wrote:
>
> Hello Andre,
>
> Compared to a run without any of the 2 patches fo
Hello Andre,
Compared to a run without any of the 2 patches for PR 116444, I get this
diff:
--- base/m55hard/analysis.gcc2024-09-18 09:07:18.879493251 +
+++ pr116444/m55hard/analysis.gcc2024-10-05 11:44:05.261683071 +
+FAIL: gcc.target/arm/attr_thumb.c scan-assembler it
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 9:25 PM Andre Vieira (lists)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The patch for 'arm: Fix missed CE optimization for armv8.1-m.main [PR
> 116444]' introduced regressions with arm targets that used 'noce' before.
> This is because it would approve all noce optimisations without using
> the def
Hi,
The patch for 'arm: Fix missed CE optimization for armv8.1-m.main [PR
116444]' introduced regressions with arm targets that used 'noce' before.
This is because it would approve all noce optimisations without using
the default cost check. Not sure why this didn't show up in my original
test
