On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 04:57:43AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> for gcc/ChangeLog
>
> PR bootstrap/83396
> * cfgexpand.c (label_rtx_for_bb): Revert SFN changes that
> allowed debug stmts before labels.
> (expand_gimple_basic_block): Likewise.
> * gimple-iterator.c
On Dec 19, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Has the patch you've posted passed bootstrap/regtest?
Yeah, here's the latest version, that survived O1, O2 and O3 bootstraps
with bootstrap-debug (-g0 for stage2), bootstrap-debug-lean
(-fcompare-debug for stage3) and bootstrap-debug-lib (-fcompare-debug
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 04:29:53PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > We want to verify there are no statements before labels.
>
> Erhm, actually...
>
> We already verify that in gimple_verify_flow_info.
>
> Is there any point in having such redundant (
On Dec 15, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> We want to verify there are no statements before labels.
Erhm, actually...
We already verify that in gimple_verify_flow_info.
Is there any point in having such redundant (?) verification?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva
On Dec 15, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Please don't revert the above 2 hunks. [...] We want to verify there are
> no statements before labels.
Why, sure! Thanks for catching this.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in th
Hi!
I'll try to read it in more details later today, but one thing I've noticed:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:51:29PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> @@ -5380,7 +5410,6 @@ verify_gimple_in_cfg (struct function *fn, bool
> verify_nothrow)
> err |= err2;
> }
>
> - bool label_all
On Dec 14, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I'll arrange for markers to be moved past labels, even in gimple
> Here's a patch that implements this, and reverts all the changes I could
> find that had been introduced to support debug markers before labels
On Dec 14, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'll arrange for markers to be moved past labels, even in gimple
Here's a patch that implements this, and reverts all the changes I could
find that had been introduced to support debug markers before labels and
between BBs.
I have *not* fully tested it
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 04:08:45PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> Rainer,
> >> PR83396 opened. you can add Solaris to the list of targets.
>
> > Andreas,
>
> > Here's a fix for the ia64 regression you m
On Dec 13, 2017, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Rainer,
>> PR83396 opened. you can add Solaris to the list of targets.
> Andreas,
> Here's a fix for the ia64 regression you mentioned in that PR.
And here's a patch that fixes the two other ia64 build failur
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 03:41:24PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> This fixes the m68k ICE.
>
> Andreas.
>
> PR bootstrap/83396
> * reload1.c (emit_input_reload_insns): Skip debug markers.
This is ok for trunk, thanks.
> --- a/gcc/reload1.c
> +++ b/gcc/reload1.c
> @@ -7345,12 +7345,1
This fixes the m68k ICE.
Andreas.
PR bootstrap/83396
* reload1.c (emit_input_reload_insns): Skip debug markers.
---
gcc/reload1.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/reload1.c b/gcc/reload1.c
index fe1ec0d011..baedc43b75 100644
--- a/gcc/r
On Dec 13, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> In particular, this testcase is using selective scheduling, therefore
> we turn off -fvar-tracking-assignments, but the debug stmt markers are
> emitted anyway.
*nod*, that much was intended (though I could be convinced to change it ;-)
> -fvar-tracking i
Jakub, I summed up to you yesterday on IRC what I expand below; this is
just for the public record.
On Dec 13, 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Furthermore, I must say I don't understand why
> can_move_early_debug_stmts should care whether there are any labels in
> dest bb or not.
An earlier attemp
Hi Jakub,
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:31:07PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Hi Jakub,
>>>
>>> > Here it is everything in patch form, in case some volunteers are willing
>>> > to
>>> > test it on their targets, because we need faster turn-arounds for this.
>>>
>>> thanks for that: it's easy to
On 13 December 2017 at 11:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Formatting, this should be
>> bool can_move_early_debug_stmts
>> = ...
>> and the line is too long, so needs to be wrapped.
>>
>> Furthermore, I must say I don't understand
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:45:51AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Formatting, this should be
> > > bool can_move_early_debug_stmts
> > > = ...
> > > and the line is too long, so
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:34:04AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 2017-12-13 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR bootstrap/83396
> > * final.c (rest_of_handle_final): Call variable_tracking_main only
> > if !flag_var_tracking.
>
> Bootstrapped/reg
Hi Jakub,
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:31:07PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Jakub,
>>
>> > Here it is everything in patch form, in case some volunteers are willing to
>> > test it on their targets, because we need faster turn-arounds for this.
>>
>> thanks for that: it's easy to loose track i
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:34:04AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2017-12-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR bootstrap/83396
> * final.c (rest_of_handle_final): Call variable_tracking_main only
> if !flag_var_tracking.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, i686-linux and powerpc64le-li
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:45:51AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Formatting, this should be
> > bool can_move_early_debug_stmts
> > = ...
> > and the line is too long, so needs to be wrapped.
> >
> > Furthermore, I must say I
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:31:07PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> > Here it is everything in patch form, in case some volunteers are willing to
> > test it on their targets, because we need faster turn-arounds for this.
>
> thanks for that: it's easy to loose track in this maze ;-)
Tr
Hi Jakub,
> Here it is everything in patch form, in case some volunteers are willing to
> test it on their targets, because we need faster turn-arounds for this.
thanks for that: it's easy to loose track in this maze ;-)
I've just bootstrapped sparc-sun-solaris2.11 with your patch and this one:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Formatting, this should be
> bool can_move_early_debug_stmts
> = ...
> and the line is too long, so needs to be wrapped.
>
> Furthermore, I must say I don't understand why
> can_move_early_debug_stmts should care whether there
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:22:32AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2017, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >> Something in this series broke bootstrap on AIX, probably Power in general.
>
> > I'm seeing the same in a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap.
>
> The AIX patch, that I've ju
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:21:01AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> index ..098a1101a3f4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/torture/pr83391.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> +/* PR debug/83391 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
If you put this into dg-torture.exp, please add:
/* { dg-options
Hi Alexandre Oliva writes:
> On Dec 12, 2017, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>> Something in this series broke bootstrap on AIX, probably Power in general.
>
>> I'm seeing the same in a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap.
>
> The AIX patch, that I've just emailed out in this thread, should fix
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:29:28AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Regstrapping; I suppose I could install it as obvious, but... Ok to install?
>
>
> [SFN] don't eliminate regs in markers
>
> Eliminate regs in debug bind insns, but not in markers.
>
> for gcc/ChangeLog
>
> PR bootstrap
On Dec 12, 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Rainer,
> PR83396 opened. you can add Solaris to the list of targets.
Andreas,
Here's a fix for the ia64 regression you mentioned in that PR.
I don't include the 'int main(){return 0;}' testcase, because it would
hardly be useful; any test would trigge
On Dec 12, 2017, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi David,
>> Something in this series broke bootstrap on AIX, probably Power in general.
> I'm seeing the same in a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap.
The AIX patch, that I've just emailed out in this thread, should fix
that as well. As for the regression yo
On Dec 12, 2017, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Something in this series broke bootstrap on AIX, probably Power in general.
And probably a number of other platforms as well.
Here's a patch that seems to have fixed lots of problems. Without it,
we might move debug (bind) stmts from a forwarder block a
Rainer,
PR83396 opened. you can add Solaris to the list of targets.
- David
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> Something in this series broke bootstrap on AIX, probably Power in general.
>
> I'm seeing the same in a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap.
>
>
Hi David,
> Something in this series broke bootstrap on AIX, probably Power in general.
I'm seeing the same in a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap.
Rainer
> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/gimple-pretty-print.c: In function 'void
> pp_gimple_stmt_1(pretty_printer*, gimple*, int, dump_flags
33 matches
Mail list logo
