This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: df_insn_refs_record's handling of global_regs[]

Hi Dave,

On x86-64, no regression in 4.2 with the patch.
So both 4.2 and mainline patches are OK.

I'd appreciate it if you can add the testcase
- it's up to you whether to add it in a separate patch or with this patch.
Thanks for fixing it.


On 10/19/07, Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) <> wrote:
> On 10/19/07, David Miller <> wrote:
> > From: "Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培)" <>
> > Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:25:14 -0700
> >
> > > If you're not in a hurry, can you wait
> > > till I run the regtest against 4.2 on x86-64 ?
> > > I've already discussed the patch with Kenny
> > > and we agreed that this is the right approach,
> > > but I'd like to see the clean regtest on x86 for both 4.2 and 4.3
> > > before I approve.
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > I am in no rush, please let me know if you want some help
> > tracking down the failure you are seeing.
> >
> > Since you say it is a libgomp failure... I wonder if some of
> > the atomic primitives need some side effect markings which
> > are missing and thus exposed by not clobbering global regs
> > at call sites any more.
> It looks like it's just a flaky test - it randomly fails on my test machine
> with or without the patch (for interested, it's omp_parse3.f90  with -O0).
> I haven't started 4.2 testing yet - I'll let you know when I get that done.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]