This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices at dwf_regno
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: <rohitarulraj at freescale dot com>, Edmar Wienskoski <edmar at freescale dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:23:35 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60102] [4.9/4.10 Regression] powerpc fp-bit ices at dwf_regno
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <201410091336 dot s99Dau4d027603 at d06av02 dot portsmouth dot uk dot ibm dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1410091636130 dot 19130 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Seeing Rohit got good results it has struck me that perhaps one of the
> patches I had previously reverted, to be able to compile GCC in the first
> place, interfered with this fix -- I backed out all the subsequent patches
> to test yours and Rohit's by themselves only. And it was actually the
> case, with this change:
> 2013-05-21 Christian Bruel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * dwarf2out.c (multiple_reg_loc_descriptor): Use dbx_reg_number for
> spanning registers. LEAF_REG_REMAP is supported only for contiguous
> registers. Set register size out of the PARALLEL loop.
> back in place, in addition to your fix, I get an all-passed score for
> gdb.base/store.exp. So your change looks good and my decision to back out
> the other patches unfortunate. I'll yet run full e500v2 testing now to
> double check, and let you know what the results are, within a couple of
> hours if things work well.
It took a bit more because I saw some regressions that I wanted to
investigate. In the end they turned out intermittent and the failures
happen sometimes whether your change is applied or not. So I'm fine with
your change, thanks for your work and patience.
For the record the failures were:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 0" 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 2" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/time-profiler-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times profile "Read tp_first_run: 3" 1