This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/41089] [4.5 Regression] r147980 (New SRA) breaks stdargs
- From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 9 Sep 2009 16:05:51 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/41089] [4.5 Regression] r147980 (New SRA) breaks stdargs
- References: <bug-41089-1649@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-09 16:05 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
>
> > Thus I am now bootstrapping and testing the following patch on
> > x86_64-linux. Uros, can you please test it on Alpha? Thanks.
>
> This patch fixes gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-4.c and
> gcc.dg/tree-ssa/stdarg-2.c, but both gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-1.c execute
> failures remain.
>
My attempts at cross-compiling these testcases seem to indicate that
no early SRA happens in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/stdarg-2.c (although ap gets
scalarized by late SRA in f15 but that is too late to affect the dumps
in the stdarg tree pass) and no SRA whatsoever takes place in
gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-1.c. Thus I believe SRA has nothing to
do with these remaining failures. If you want to confirm this
independently, compile them with -fno-tree-sra.
This also makes me believe that the patch is the one to commit. I
will send it to the mailing list shortly. Thanks for testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41089