On Apr 5, 2013, at 11:18 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Andrey, could you please take care of this ?
>
> I've reverted the patch after bootstrapping/regtesting on x86-64/Linux.
Thanks Eric.
> Andrey, could you please take care of this ?
I've reverted the patch after bootstrapping/regtesting on x86-64/Linux.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Apr 5, 2013, at 15:40 , Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> As written in PR56848, the patch should be reverted for 4.7.3
> and reapplied together with the additional fix after 4.7.3 is released
> (before 4.7.3 release there is just too short time to do anything else,
> while before 4.7.4 there will be ple
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 03:28:11PM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>
> On Apr 5, 2013, at 13:22 , Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01625.html
> >>
> >> I don't know whether backporting this would be better than reverting
> >> the offending change as ju
On Apr 5, 2013, at 13:22 , Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01625.html
>>
>> I don't know whether backporting this would be better than reverting
>> the offending change as just done on 4.7.
>
> I'd say for 4.6 the best way is to revert. PR 56077 is
On 05.04.2013 14:10, Olivier Hainque wrote:
On Apr 5, 2013, at 10:13 , Eric Botcazou wrote:
We do have regressions on the 4.7 branch in the scheduler (CCed Olivier who
has more information).
Right: we do see a SEGV while compiling the attached monitor.i (preprocessed
output from a qemu tr
On Apr 5, 2013, at 12:21 , Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I don't know whether backporting this would be better than reverting
>> the offending change as just done on 4.7.
>
> I presume that you meant on the 4.6 branch.
Arf, indeed, thanks for correcting :)
> I don't know whether backporting this would be better than reverting
> the offending change as just done on 4.7.
I presume that you meant on the 4.6 branch.
--
Eric Botcazou
> Jakub, you don't happen to remember any changes in this area that could
> hide the problem for 4.7 and later?
We do have regressions on the 4.7 branch in the scheduler (CCed Olivier who
has more information).
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:54:48AM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> I am testing the revert of this backport for 4.6 and will commit it
> in about an hour or so. However, I am surprised we don't hit this
Ok, thanks.
> either on 4.7, 4.8 or trunk. Some flush_pending_lists calls are
> protected
On 01.04.2013 12:38, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 22.02.2013 17:30, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
As found by Jakub and explained in the PR audit trail by Alexander, this
patch fixes the selective scheduler merge glitch of 2008 that added the
unnecessary JUMP_P check to the flush_pending_lis
On 22.02.2013 17:30, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
As found by Jakub and explained in the PR audit trail by Alexander, this
patch fixes the selective scheduler merge glitch of 2008 that added the
unnecessary JUMP_P check to the flush_pending_lists call. I have removed
the check and expanded
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:55:39AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/22/13 09:52, abel wrote:
> >
> >Thanks. You are right, I forgot to fix the comment before submitting.
> >
> >Is the patch also fine for 4.7/4.6? The problem is also present there.
> It's up to the release managers for 4.7/4.6. It ce
On 02/22/13 09:52, abel wrote:
Thanks. You are right, I forgot to fix the comment before submitting.
Is the patch also fine for 4.7/4.6? The problem is also present there.
It's up to the release managers for 4.7/4.6. It certainly would have my
blessing.
jeff
On 2013-02-22 18:21, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/22/13 07:16, Alexander Monakov wrote:
You must be referring to the PR audit trail, right? I'm sure the bug
reporter
is mistaken that the stores are coalesced. What happens is that two
of the
three stores are moved up above the first asm, but becau
On 02/22/13 07:16, Alexander Monakov wrote:
You must be referring to the PR audit trail, right? I'm sure the bug reporter
is mistaken that the stores are coalesced. What happens is that two of the
three stores are moved up above the first asm, but because of how the awk
script cuts the genera
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/22/13 06:30, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As found by Jakub and explained in the PR audit trail by Alexander, this
> > patch fixes the selective scheduler merge glitch of 2008 that added the
> > unnecessary JUMP_P check to the flush_pe
On 02/22/13 06:30, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hello,
As found by Jakub and explained in the PR audit trail by Alexander, this
patch fixes the selective scheduler merge glitch of 2008 that added the
unnecessary JUMP_P check to the flush_pending_lists call. I have
removed the check and expanded th
Hello,
As found by Jakub and explained in the PR audit trail by Alexander, this
patch fixes the selective scheduler merge glitch of 2008 that added the
unnecessary JUMP_P check to the flush_pending_lists call. I have removed
the check and expanded the binary negation for clarity.
The patch
19 matches
Mail list logo
