This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: need help with 176.gcc from SPEC CPU2000 on LP64 with GCC 3
- From: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:53:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: need help with 176.gcc from SPEC CPU2000 on LP64 with GCC 3
- References: <20020213101653.A3749@us.ibm.com> <A9EB08E7-20AE-11D6-B07E-003065C86F94@apple.com>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:22:40AM -0800, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 10:16 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> > P.S. I compiled and ran (with test input) all of the integer tests on
> > i686-pc-linux-gnu and ia64-unknown-linux-gnu with a variety of
> > optimization options and got some run-time failures with -funroll-loops.
> > I don't have the time or knowledge about loop unrolling to track these
> > down for proper problem reports. What should I do with this information?
> >
> This patch
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-01/msg00211.html
> fixes a problem in loop unrolling in Spec. Have you got it?
Follow-ups to that message say it's been applied, so yes; the latest
version I've tried is gcc version 3.1 20020211 on both machines. gap
gets a segfault when built with "-O2 -funroll-loops" on i686, and
on ia64-linux gap and sixtrack (oh yeah, I ran some FP tests too) both
fail at runtime when compiled with those options.
Janis