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: Record likely upper bounds for loops

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 20:17:28 +0200
Subject: Re: Record likely upper bounds for loops
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <20160527111409 dot GA44464 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1605271347520 dot 13344 at t29 dot fhfr dot qr> <20160527121515 dot GD44464 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 20 dot 1605272017230 dot 2043 at monopod dot intra dot ispras dot ru>

Hi,

On 27/05/2016 19:20, Alexander Monakov wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Jan Hubicka wrote:

Thanks, updatted and comitted.

This checkin seems to regress gcc.c-torture/execute/20050826-2.c at -Os:

gcc/xgcc -Bgcc/ ../gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20050826-2.c -Os \
   -o ./20050826-2.exe

./20050826-2.exe
Aborted

(the previous revision is fine)

I suspect (should double check) this one too in libstdc++-v3:

    FAIL: 25_algorithms/is_sorted/1.cc execution test

Paolo.

References:
- Record likely upper bounds for loops
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Record likely upper bounds for loops
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: Record likely upper bounds for loops
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Record likely upper bounds for loops
  - From: Alexander Monakov

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