This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
On 30 September 2016 at 20:10, Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> wrote:
>> From: Christophe Lyon [christophe.lyon@linaro.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:17 PM
>> To: Matthew Fortune
>> Cc: Doug Gilmore; Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
>>
>> On 23 September 2016 at 17:55, Matthew Fortune
>> <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> wrote:
>> > Doug Gilmore <Doug.Gilmore@imgtec.com> writes:
>> >> > From: Richard Biener [rguenther@suse.de]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:43 AM
>> >> > To: Doug Gilmore
>> >> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; rguenth@gcc.gnu.org
>> >> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR tree-optimization/77654
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Doug Gilmore wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > ...
>> >> > > Sorry I that missed point. I glossed your comment "addr_base should
>> >> > > always be a pointer", causing me to go off into the weeds.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > New patch attached.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ok if successfully bootstrapped / tested.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Richard.
>> >> The change bootstrapped on X86_64 and the several "make check" errors
>> >> also appeared in latest archived mail message to gcc-testresults.
>> >
>> > Committed as r240439.
>> >
>>
>> Since this commit, I've noticed ICE on arm target:
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
>> (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/params/blocksort-part.c -O3 --param prefetch-latency=0
>> (test for excess errors)
>> Excess errors:
>> /aci-gcc-fsf/sources/gcc-fsf/gccsrc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dREMOTE_SNAPSHOTS=g/params/blocksort-part.c:116:6:
>> internal compiler error: in duplicate
>> _ssa_name_ptr_info, at tree-ssanames.c:630
>> ...
> Hi Christophe,
>
> I filed PR77808, will send out a fix shortly.
>
Thanks
> BTW, I missed this in regression testing since -fprefetch-loop-arrays
> is needed to expose the problem. Are you setting this as the default
> in your compiler build?
>
No, I did not do anything special.
I'm not sure to understand: this option is not in the command line
of the offending test.
Christophe
> Thanks,
>
> Doug