Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-14 Thread Yvan Roux
On 14 April 2015 at 10:35, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:32:16AM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: >>> The issue is more related to armv6 than M profile, but if it is widely >>> tested as well I can just commit the torture

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-14 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:32:16AM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: >> The issue is more related to armv6 than M profile, but if it is widely >> tested as well I can just commit the torture test if it's ok for >> Jakub. > > If it is tested by enough p

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:32:16AM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: > The issue is more related to armv6 than M profile, but if it is widely > tested as well I can just commit the torture test if it's ok for > Jakub. If it is tested by enough people, just the execute.exp test is ok of course. Jaku

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-14 Thread Yvan Roux
On 14 April 2015 at 10:19, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Yvan Roux wrote: >> Hi >> >> On 7 April 2015 at 22:02, Yvan Roux wrote: >>> On 7 April 2015 at 21:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: > validation i

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-14 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Yvan Roux wrote: > Hi > > On 7 April 2015 at 22:02, Yvan Roux wrote: >> On 7 April 2015 at 21:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: validation is ongoing, but here is my attempt to add this testcase, doe

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-13 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 03:36:06PM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Yes, the arm part is ok. I believe Jakub ok'ed the gcc.c-torture hunk. > I think it can go in now, as it is a testcase for a PR that was fixed for GCC > 5. > Does it need to be committed to the release branch as well? Yes, but it p

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-13 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
On 13/04/15 15:10, Yvan Roux wrote: On 13 April 2015 at 15:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: On 09/04/15 12:10, Yvan Roux wrote: diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c new file mode 100644 index 000..e075546 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-13 Thread Yvan Roux
On 13 April 2015 at 15:42, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 09/04/15 12:10, Yvan Roux wrote: >> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c >> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000..e075546 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-13 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
On 09/04/15 12:10, Yvan Roux wrote: diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c new file mode 100644 index 000..e075546 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +/* { dg-do run } */ +/* { dg-skip-if "avoid co

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 01:10:41PM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: > 2105-04-09 Yvan Roux > > PR target/65648 > * gcc.c-torture/execute/pr65648.c: New test. This part is definitely ok for trunk. > * gcc.target/arm/pr65648.c: New test. This part should better be reviewed by so

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-09 Thread Yvan Roux
Hi On 7 April 2015 at 22:02, Yvan Roux wrote: > On 7 April 2015 at 21:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: >>> validation is ongoing, but here is my attempt to add this testcase, >>> does it look correct (it's the first time I use that kind of in

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-07 Thread Yvan Roux
On 7 April 2015 at 21:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: >> validation is ongoing, but here is my attempt to add this testcase, >> does it look correct (it's the first time I use that kind of include >> in testsuite) > > The intent is that we have

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:28:51PM +0200, Yvan Roux wrote: > validation is ongoing, but here is my attempt to add this testcase, > does it look correct (it's the first time I use that kind of include > in testsuite) The intent is that we have a testcase for all targets at various optimization leve

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-07 Thread Yvan Roux
Hi Jakub, On 7 April 2015 at 17:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:01:59AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >> 2015-04-07 Vladimir Makarov >> >> PR target/65678 >> * lra-remat.c (do_remat): Process input and non-input insn >> registers separately. > > D

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:01:59AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > 2015-04-07 Vladimir Makarov > > PR target/65678 > * lra-remat.c (do_remat): Process input and non-input insn > registers separately. Don't have a quick access to arm box right now (without waiting for i

Re: patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:01:59AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > The following patch fixes > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648 > > The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86-64. > > I am lost to produce a test for the PR which can work on all arm > sub-targets and h

patch to fix PR65648

2015-04-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
The following patch fixes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648 The patch was bootstrapped and tested on x86-64. I am lost to produce a test for the PR which can work on all arm sub-targets and have no sub-target hardware to test it. Therefore the patch does not contain th