https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm sorry, I don't understand how to get the information from the recent
changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/gcc/commit/?id=0562e17bd04b65aebff4721db05631b9f34af146
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
This is the change I made to report warnings when was
maybe_complain_about_tail_call called:
heine:~/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline/gcc> git diff
diff --git a/gcc/calls.cc b/gcc/calls.cc
index b3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #12 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> We can't just warn on all calls, most of them obviously aren't in tail call
> positions and such warning would have extreme amounts of false posi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #8 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
What I have in mind is along the lines of the patch I proposed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626368.html
That adds a warning to -Wdisabled-optimization for when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
What initially got me investigating this is that
(a) these tail calls were not optimized by GCC 14 and I got segfaults, so
(b) I added musttail and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #3 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Originally I understood musttail to be "It's crucial that this call be
optimized, fail and tell me why if you can't do it", without changing whether a
call is optimized. (This is always assum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
--- Comment #1 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 61068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61068&action=edit
test file
This is the file with the single incident of __attribute__((musttail)). If you
remov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119718
Bug ID: 119718
Summary: __attribute__((musttail)) affects whether
-foptimize-tail-calls will in fact optimize a tail
call
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #35 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #34)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #33)
> > It is my understanding that with the set of patches related to this PR, GCC
> > 15 with -foptimize-ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
--- Comment #33 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Sorry, I screwed up and fired off my comment before it was finished. Here's
the rest:
(c) With today's GCC mainline head, those tail calls *are* optimized, as
confirmed with the musttail at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||feeley at iro dot umontre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #10 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 60738 [details]
> gcc15-pr116545.patch
>
> Full untested patch.
I built and minimally tested this patch, and will upload the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #11 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 60745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60745&action=edit
Test summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #8 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 60738 [details]
> gcc15-pr116545.patch
>
> Full untested patch.
I don't know how to apply this patch to the git checked-out s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #6 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
>
> does that for C.
I built mainline with these changes, and the resulting compiler builds Gambit
without complaint or error.
I'm now running ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116545
--- Comment #1 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
A pre-release of GCC 15 is now in Fedora Rawhide, and building Gambit Scheme
fails with this issue: https://github.com/gambit/gambit/issues/949
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #33 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I don't know what the issues are about whether to support __attribute__,
whether the notation is obsolete or nonstandard.
If gcc doesn't support this notation, it might lead to just one more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #31 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Are there plans to support the __attribute__((musttail)) notation for C code?
It appears that with
heine:~/programs/gambit/gambit> clang -v
Ubuntu clang version 14.0.0-1ubuntu1.1
one needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
--- Comment #30 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks.
I asked for some help in testing this new attribute at gcc-help:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2024-August/143676.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83324
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot purdue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #45 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I confirm that I no longer have this problem with
> gcc-12 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-12
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/12/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #146 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Here are a few memory and time statistics picked from report-compiler4 that
seem to be more extreme than the others:
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #145 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 54424
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54424&action=edit
CPU and Memory usage reports for mainline 13.0.1 (mainline)
Thank you for looking at this issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #141 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 52027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52027&action=edit
CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #17 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #16)
> Created attachment 52026 [details]
> CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
Sorry, added comment to wrong PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51446
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 52026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52026&action=edit
CPU and Memorty usage reports for compilling all.i, _num.i, and compiler.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
--- Comment #140 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #139)
> Does anyone have recent #s on this testcase?
I downloaded all.i.gz from
https://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/gcc/test-files/bugzilla/1/
and _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #58 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks. Brad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #54 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
After an update to Fink's dejagnu, I got similar results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #51 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm running fink:
i expect 5.45-206Tool for automatic interactive applications
i dejagnu 1.6.1-1 Framework for testing other programs
i tcltk 1:8.6.10-2 Too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #49 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
> > and "make; make -k check".
>
> Which, presumably, succeeded [repeatably?] (also presumably with some
> failing tests, since we don't have a clean testsuite on macOS).
It gave reasonab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #47 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I downloaded
[Bradleys-Mac-mini:~/programs/gcc/gcc-mainline] lucier% git log -1 --oneline
2254b3233b5 (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk, origin/master, origin/HEAD) PR
middle-end/100325 - missin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #25 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Thanks, I'll just use an older compiler for building Gambit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #23 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
With the mainline compiler
git log -1 --oneline
0c0bdcc60cf (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
libgomp.fortran/depobj-1.f90: Fix omp_depend_kind
the Gambit build run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #18 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I can't see to build mainline on this machine, it fails with
../../../gcc-mainline/gcc/rtl.h:4547:42: error: use of undeclared identifier
'TARGET_ISA_64BIT'
&& GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #16 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I have figured out how to build and then run the app in lldb to reliably
reproduce the error.
To configure and build Gambit, the Scheme->C compiler:
51 8:56mkdir gambit-test
52
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #13 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> the values of rbp. r10 and esi would be interesting too.
I'm not really familiar with assembler, don't know what register esi is, here's
what lldb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #12 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #11)
> is this specific to macOS? (or is it unknown if the effect would also show
> on Linux)?
It does not show up on Linux with gcc-10.3.0.
I forgot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #10 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> >
> > > yes please - also the original source, if that's OK?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #9 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> >
> > > yes please - also the original source, if that's OK?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #7 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6)
> yes please - also the original source, if that's OK?
It's highly macrofied C code with a lot of "includes"; is the .i file not
enough?
Brad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #5 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I didn't have this trouble with 10.2 or 9.3; should I add these to the "Known
to work" field?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50639
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50639&action=edit
Gzipped assembly file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #1 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50638
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50638&action=edit
preprocessed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
Bug ID: 100152
Summary: Possible 10.3 bad code generation regression from
10.2/9.3 on Mac OS 10.15.7 (Catalina)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #37 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50352
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50352&action=edit
Smaller parameterized test file
This file is generated from a single copy of the fibonacci func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #35 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
Created attachment 50345
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50345&action=edit
Parametrized input files for test coverage testing.
These are the .i files that go with my prev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #34 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I decided to approach this a bit more methodically by generating a series of
synthetic programs, each twice as long as the previous, and to measure the
compilation time. I'll attach the assoc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #32 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I don't know precisely what you're saying, but it compiles fine without the
instrumentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
--- Comment #30 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I'm coming back to this project.
I naively thought "Well, I don't need arc profiling, I'll just set
-ftest-coverage without -fprofile-arcs" but it appears that I can't do that,
the gcda files
50 matches
Mail list logo
