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: [PATCH] PR target/70155: Use SSE for TImode load/store


On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:47 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Tested on Linux/x86-64.  OK for trunk?
> >> >>
> >> >>> +  /* FIXME: Since the CSE pass may change dominance info, which isn't
> >> >>> +     expected by the fwprop pass, call free_dominance_info to
> >> >>> +     invalidate dominance info.  Otherwise, the fwprop pass may crash
> >> >>> +     when dominance info is changed.  */
> >> >>> +  if (TARGET_64BIT)
> >> >>> +    free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
> >> >>> +
> >> >>
> >> >> Please resolve the above problem first, target-dependent sources are
> >> >> not the place to apply band-aids for middle-end problems. The thread
> >> >> with the proposed fix died in [1].
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-03/msg00143.html
> >> >
> >> > free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS) has been called in other
> >> > places to avoid this middle-end issue.   I don't know when the middle-end
> >> > will be fixed.  I don't think this target optimization should be penalized by
> >> > the middle-end issue.
> >>
> >> Let's ask Richard if he is OK with the workaround...
> >
> > Well, it's ultimately your call (it's a workaround in the target).
> 
> Oh well, ...
> 
> > Of course I'd like to see the underlying issue fixed and the
> > workarounds in "other places" be removed.
> 
> ... then at least a reference to a relevant PR should be added to a
> FIXME comment.

HJ, can you please open a bug with 1) a testcase, 2) a patch to revert
the workaround so it shows the ICE and 3) a pointer to the ml thread
with your preliminary analysis?

The advantage is that with the patch in we have a reproducer at least.

Thanks,
Richard.


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