This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR61542 - V4SF vector extract for little endian
- From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, BIll Schmidt <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Tejas Belagod <tejas dot belagod at arm dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:18:25 +0200
- Subject: RE: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR61542 - V4SF vector extract for little endian
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1403045084 dot 3788 dot 20 dot camel at gnopaine>,<CAGWvny=sSo71coad9o-6yutO0VhTaiFyek5Rt3sdp9xTzAZQdQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:56:15, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:44 PM, BIll Schmidt
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> As described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542, a
>> new test case (gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c) was added in 4.9. This
>> exposes a bug on PowerPC little endian for extracting an element from a
>> V4SF value that goes back to 4.8. The following patch fixes the
>> Tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no regressions. Ok to
>> commit to trunk? I would also like to commit to 4.8 and 4.9 as soon as
>> possible to be picked up by the distros.
> This is okay everywhere.
>> I would also like to backport gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c to 4.8 to
>> provide regression coverage.
> You should ask Bernd and the RMs. Was the bug fix that prompted the
> new testcase backported to all targets?
> Thanks, David
actually I only added the check_vect to that test case, but that
exposed a bug on Solaris-9.
That was in the -fdump-rtl-combine-details handling, where
fprintf got a NULL value passed for %s, which ICEs on Solaris9.
So if you backport that test case, be sure to check that one too.
Originally the test case seems to check something for the aarch64-target.
Obviously the patch in rtlanal.c (set_noop_p) was never backported to the 4.8 branch.
Maybe Tejas who originally wrote that test case, can explain, if it makes
sense to backport this fix too.