This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: [4.8 branch] PATCH: PR middle-end/53623: [4.7/4.8 Regression] sign extension is effectively split into two x86-64 instructions


On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:24 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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 <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> 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.
>>
>
> I will do that and restart the testing.
>

I tested it on x86-32, x86-64 and x32.  There are no regressions.


-- 
H.J.


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