Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 9/24/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That is exactly what I had in mind. If you invalidate a property then > > the property is destroyed and whoever asks for it must invoke the > > relevant function to enable it agai

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24/09/2007, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > And *before* salias? Does it make a difference? It suits me better for > > > my purposes. > > > > Can't do

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Diego Novillo
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is exactly what I had in mind. If you invalidate a property then > the property is destroyed and whoever asks for it must invoke the > relevant function to enable it again. Is that a problem? In principle, I don't think that'd be a

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 24/09/2007, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't get it. If you ask for PROP_alias and aliases have been > > computed, then PROP_alias is enabled and you don't need to compute > > them again. > > You do if alias infor

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Diego Novillo
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't get it. If you ask for PROP_alias and aliases have been > computed, then PROP_alias is enabled and you don't need to compute > them again. You do if alias information has gone stale due to transformations. The SSA form is anothe

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 24/09/2007, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't understand is why PROPerties are not associated with TODO_ > > functions in a way that if a pass don't have the properties it > > requires, it can call the appropriate

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Diego Novillo
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't understand is why PROPerties are not associated with TODO_ > functions in a way that if a pass don't have the properties it > requires, it can call the appropriate TODO_ function. That way, if > some pass needs PROP_alias but non

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-24 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 24/09/2007, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > And *before* salias? Does it make a difference? It suits me better for > > my purposes. > > Can't do it before salias. > > I didn't want to add a dummy pass mainly because i

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PRO

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Ta

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I am not so concerned about efficiency ATM, I am trying to build SSA at O0. > > If you only want simple SSA you should look at doing expansion after > early optimization.

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PRO

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Am I wrong? I have the same problem

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Ta

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, if the -fno-t

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Well, if the -fno-tree-salias flag now causes wrong-code bugs then I > > > certainly agr

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, if the -fno-tree-salias flag now causes wrong-code bugs then I > > certainly agree that it should be eliminated. > > I didn't say that ;) But I cert

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > We've got a test case with gcc 4.2 for which compilation time goes > > > from nine minutes to 30 seconds when we use that option. I know the > > > code is much better

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We've got a test case with gcc 4.2 for which compilation time goes > > from nine minutes to 30 seconds when we use that option. I know the > > code is much better in mainline. Still, I would prefer to keep the > > option unless we are certain th

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On 23 Sep 2007 09:13:59 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 9/23/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ># all tests fail with ICE in verify_curr_properties; -m32/-m64 > > > >-O2 -fno-tree-salias > > > >-Os -fno-tr

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9/23/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ># all tests fail with ICE in verify_curr_properties; -m32/-m64 > > >-O2 -fno-tree-salias > > >-Os -fno-tree-salias > > > > > > Known. This is normally the first place we build aliasing info.

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On 9/23/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ># all tests fail with ICE in verify_curr_properties; -m32/-m64 > >-O2 -fno-tree-salias > >-Os -fno-tree-salias > > > Known. This is normally the first place we build aliasing info. > Unless we have a compelling reason to have this flag, we sh

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-22 Thread Daniel Berlin
># all tests fail with ICE in verify_curr_properties; -m32/-m64 >-O2 -fno-tree-salias >-Os -fno-tree-salias Known. This is normally the first place we build aliasing info. Unless we have a compelling reason to have this flag, we should simply remove the flag. > # all tests fail with ICE in ver

Re: [RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On 9/21/07, Janis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # gap, gcc, vortex run fails; -m64 > -fpack-struct > # eon build fails with (valid?) error; -m32/-m64 > -fpack-struct These above failures are kinda of expected as -fpack-struct does change the ABI. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

[RFC] failures found while pounding on GCC trunk

2007-09-21 Thread Janis Johnson
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01702.html I describe tools to generate sets of GCC command-line options used to find combinations that don't work together. Using those tools and a setup to build and run (with short test input) individual tests from SPEC CPU2000, I've found the fol