This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [4.8 branch] PATCH: PR middle-end/53623: [4.7/4.8 Regression] sign extension is effectively split into two x86-64 instructions
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:18:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: [4.8 branch] PATCH: PR middle-end/53623: [4.7/4.8 Regression] sign extension is effectively split into two x86-64 instructions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150215205339 dot GA26523 at gmail dot com> <20150216093526 dot GA1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOq0689DnWsGwR8YZBsVC1QEcrMKNiSU4baka1mronLLJw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrt4Omo+h2sKaWS=uwac-2mLNPnONj3fbZ3P5NmFAUR0Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 05:15:02AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:53:39PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> This is a backport of the patch for PR middle-end/53623 plus all bug
> >>> fixes caused by it. Tested on Linux/x86-32, Linux/x86-64 and x32. OK
> >>> for 4.8 branch?
> >> What about PR64286 and PR63659, are you sure those aren't related?
> >> I mean, they are on the 4.9 branch and I don't see why they couldn't affect
> >> the 4.8 backport.
> >> Jakub
> > Fix for PR 63659 has been backported to 4.8 branch. I will check if
> > fix for PR 64286 is needed.
> > --
> > H.J.
> The fix for PR 64286 is an updated fix for PR 59754 which is caused by
> the fix for PR 53623. But the testcase in the fix for PR 64286 doesn't
> fail on 4.8 branch + my backport of the fix for PR 53623 on Haswell.
> I suggest
> 1. We go without my current backport and backport the fix for PR 64286
> in a separate patch. Or
> 2. We go without my backport minus the backport of the PR 59754
> fix and backport the fixes for PR 59754 plus PR 64286 in a separate patch
I think keeping the branch broken is bad, even if we don't have a testcase
that really fails, pressumably the issue is just latent.
So I'd strongly prefer
3. Add the PR64286 fix to the patch being tested and commit only when it as
whole is tested, as one commit.