This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/49519] [4.7 Regression] Revision 175272 miscompiled 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:36:40 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/49519] [4.7 Regression] Revision 175272 miscompiled 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-49519-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-07-12 08:35:18 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519
>
> Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |ian at airs dot com
>
> --- Comment #27 from Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com> 2011-07-12 04:37:01 UTC ---
> This patch seems too conservative and it appears that it will cause the
> compiler to miss all tailcalls with pointer arguments. It only matters if the
> register points to the incoming parameters, which can only happen in unusual
> cases. We should be able to determine that reliably. Janis, did you open a PR
> for the missing optimization? I didn't see one.
The point is, of course, we have to determine it conservatively correct.
The patch makes sure we do that.
Richard.