This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/35642] heisenbug in tree vectorizer
- From: "zadeck at naturalbridge dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Mar 2008 13:59:53 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/35642] heisenbug in tree vectorizer
- References: <bug-35642-11013@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-03-20 13:59 -------
Subject: Re: heisenbug in tree vectorizer
bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-03-20 13:51 -------
> Indeed my patch exposes additional vectorization abilities (which was
> unexpected).
>
> Kenny, can you run the failing testcase under valgrind?
>
>
>
I did run it under valgrind and found no problems.
However, i am a little skeptical about regression hunting for these
failures. I have found that they come and go based on small changes to
other parts of the compiler, i.e. they are symptomatic of some
uninitialized variable problem or a storage overwriting.
in particular, with the release that i specified in message 1, the
failures were there if the compiler was not bootstrapped and were there
if it was bootstrapped. Also, changes that i made to that release in
the register allocator, which is far downstream of the tree vectorizer
caused the problems to hit for both bootstrapped and not bootstrapped
builds.
I would suggest that you go roll back to that release mentioned in
message 1, where you have exactly the same code base for bootstrapped
and non bootstrapped compiler and run the two compilers in parallel
until you find the place where they diverge.
It could very well be that this may be that this is a problem with
someone elses code, but you are the occam's razor first choice.
kenny
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35642