> Do you really need the memset in there to reproduce it?
> Wouldn't asm volatile ("" : : "r" (&a[0]) : "memory");
> or something similar be enough? Or if you need to clear something,
> clear much smaller part of the array?
Probably only the 128 first bytes, will change that.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 03:16:20PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> /* { dg-do run } */
> /* { dg-options "-g" } */
> /* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "*" } { "-O0" } } */
>
> typedef __UINTPTR_TYPE__ uintptr_t;
>
> typedef struct { uintptr_t pa; uintptr_t pb; } fatp_t
> __attribute__ ((aligned (2
> The testcase doesn't necessarily need to FAIL without the patch on x86, it
> is fine if it fails on some PowerPC* or Visium.
Here's what I have installed on mainline and 6 branch (not sure it's worth
fixing on the aging 5 branch). The test fails on PowerPC/Linux:
(gdb) b param-5.c:26
Breakpoi
> The testcase doesn't necessarily need to FAIL without the patch on x86, it
> is fine if it fails on some PowerPC* or Visium.
Well, the value of a guality test that isn't exercised on x86 is close to 0,
but I can try on PowerPC indeed.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Ok, even for branches I think, but would be nice to have a corresponding
> > guality testcase (perhaps just for -O0 with dg-skip-if) which fails without
> > this patch and succeeds with it.
>
> Thanks. The failure mode is that the
> Ok, even for branches I think, but would be nice to have a corresponding
> guality testcase (perhaps just for -O0 with dg-skip-if) which fails without
> this patch and succeeds with it.
Thanks. The failure mode is that the offset from VIRTUAL_STACK_VARS_REGNUM is
too large so, on RISC architec
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:52:32AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> the fix for PR middle-end/61268:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=213002
> changed validize_mem to modify its argument in-place, which in turns means
> that emit_move_insn can do it too. That's a little sur
