This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Testcase for -fssa bug
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Subject: Re: Testcase for -fssa bug
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:19:52 -0600
- cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <u81z2yxz22.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de>you write:
[ ... ]
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920625-1.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/920726-1.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/921013-1.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-10.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-12.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-14.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-2.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-4.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-6.c execution, -O3 -fssa
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/931004-8.c execution, -O3 -fssa
Yup. Not unexpected. But the nice thing is there aren't a huge number
of failures.
> The only question remains which optimization level should be used? Is
> -O3 ok or should we use -O2 together with -fssa?
I think -O3 -fssa is OK for now.
jeff