This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Measuring gcc optimizations: are they well balanced?
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 04:27:21PM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
> At 15:36 10.01.00 , Andi Kleen wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:53:09PM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > >
> > > This seems to be a miscompilation on x86 only (?), I tried it with current
> > > gcc-2_95-branch on PPC and the produced code looks and works fine. Andi
> > > tried the current 2.95-branch on x86 and could still reproduce the bug.
> >
> >I just looked at it again, and gcc 2.95 current seems to generate
> >correct code now. Maybe I just looked at the wrong assembler file.
> >I'm sorry for the confusion. Jan, no need to do anything.
>
> Just FYI, the patches that probably fixed this are:
Thanks.
>
> Mon Dec 27 07:32:59 1999 Jeffrey A Law (law@cygnus.com)
>
> Thu Sep 16 00:46:35 1999 Geoff Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>
> * loop.c (basic_induction_var): A non-integer variable which is
> being set by a paradoxical subreg is probably not a biv.
>
> 1999-08-31 12:20 -0700 Zack Weinberg <zack@bitmover.com>
> * loop.c (check_dbra_loop): Check bl->biv->add_val is a
> CONST_INT before using its INTVAL.
>
> My personal bet goes on Zack's patch :-). It fixed some strange behaviours
> on PPC too, that's why I told you to try the branch :-).
>
> BTW, Andi, do you have any other serious 2.95.2 bugs in your queue?
I know of no other serious bugs in 2.95.x
-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.