This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PR55547] fix alias regression on alpha on misaligned symbols (was: Re: do you have time to review this alpha P1 patch?)
- From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:35:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PR55547] fix alias regression on alpha on misaligned symbols (was: Re: do you have time to review this alpha P1 patch?)
- References: <50F582CE.3090201@redhat.com> <50F585DB.2020706@redhat.com> <orlibt6995.fsf_-_@livre.localdomain> <CAFULd4ZHk06g5frGU=rYdQmZ5EiFx2VU6GbG_jn1Rwfuco_4jQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/15/2013 08:24 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>>> Ok, it's really an alias.c bug, but it is Alpha, and aoliva has already
>>>> provided an unreviewed patch...
>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55547
>>
>>> The patch in #C4 is ok.
>>
>> Thanks, I'm checking it in (first patch below), but reviewing the logic
>> that uses negative sizes, I found a number of places that should use the
>> absolute value, and others in which being conservative about negative
>> sizes is unnecessary (e.g., when dealing with CONST_INT addresses).
>> That was implemented and regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Uros, would
>> you give the second patch a spin on alpha to make sure it doesn't
>> regress? Ok to install it?
>
> Thanks, I started a bootstrap/regtest run. If everything goes as
> expected, the results will be available in ~10h from now...
The results looks good [1], no regressions with patch.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-01/msg01706.html
Uros.