This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn
- From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:47:00 +0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-66612-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I experimented a bit with this. If I force the candidate cost of the
iv cand that has step -1 and ends at 0 (after the final increment) to
be COST_N_INSNS (1) less, simulating what the cost should be taking
our doloop into account, we get the expected loop body (and the usual
mess in the header, alas).
Let's not XFAIL it (yet); it's a regression, we can still fix it in
stage 3.