http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #9 from Teresa Johnson 2013-04-29
17:24:42 UTC ---
It does fix the issue I had in this test case. But theoretically can't
this pattern still generate an MMX reference in some cases? And I see
other instances of the same constra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2013-04-30
05:43:06 UTC ---
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, ubizjak at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
>
> --- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-29
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
05:13:07 UTC ---
Investigating. I am not sure I have access to a powerpc64, but I am
trying to trigger it on x86_64.
Teresa
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:16 PM, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
15:01:51 UTC ---
Couldn't reproduce on x86_64, so I am on gcc110 trying to get a
bootstrap compiler build going to reproduce. Also see the dup with
testcase (again doesn't reproduce on x86_64,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
15:10:50 UTC ---
Thanks for the test case - reproduced with my stage1 compiler on gcc110. Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:02 AM, dje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
only additional use of combine_probabilities in my patch, so there
shouldn't be any other issues like this. Will send the patch for
review once the bootstrap completes.
Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:10 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
15:41:14 UTC ---
Hi Steve!
Can you confirm whether the patch I just sent also fixes the mips failure?
Thanks,
Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:40 AM, sje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
16:24:33 UTC ---
My powerpc bootstrap completed successfully. Sent patch out for review.
Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:03 AM, sje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-05
19:02:51 UTC ---
I finally got a reproducer for the error that H.J. reported. I will work on
fixing that first.
Markus, I looked at the gcda file you sent but don't see anything obviously
wrong with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-06
18:58:55 UTC ---
I think I have a solution for the issue that H.J. is encountering. Details
below. Markus and H.J., would you be able to try the following patch to see if
it addresses the failure you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-06
20:02:30 UTC ---
That's good news. I will finish testing the patch and send it for review.
Thanks,
Teresa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-06
20:23:50 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-06 20:06:55
> UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #14 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-07
05:19:10 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-06 20:49:02
> UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
17:24:58 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
> wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
17:39:00 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2012-09-11 17:29:15
> UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
18:05:13 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> How much saving do we get by not writing out the 0 entries? With the
> proposed change, how less frequent is the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #24 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
18:57:05 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
>
> --- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2012-09-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #27 from Teresa Johnson 2012-09-11
19:08:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the pointers, Jakub. I'll work on adding this check.
Teresa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
Created attachment 30214
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30214&action=edit
pr49115.C
While fixing problems with -f
,
||tejohnson at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson ---
Cary, any ideas on how to fix this issue? Thanks, Teresa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
Yes, there is a NOTE_INSN_SWITCH_TEXT_SECTIONS note emitted for functions
that are split. In the attached test case the symbol-symbol expression is
being generated across the split boundary of main(), and I c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
>
> --- Comment #4 from Cary Coutant ---
> The problem is a lexical block in main() th
gcc dot gnu.org
> CC: steven at gcc dot gnu.org, tejohnson at google dot com
> Target: sh*-*-*
>
> On SH, compiling the following code with -O2
>
> #include
>
> std::bitset<32> make_bits (void)
> {
> std::bitset<32> r;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58033
--- Comment #4 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:40 PM, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58033
>
> --- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
> Created attachment 30574
> --> http://gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
>>
>> --- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:23 PM, ccoutant at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
>
> --- Comment #7 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
>> Index: final.c
>> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
Thanks, and sorry for the trouble.
Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test
it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but
I didn't get the failure on that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:49 AM, kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
>
> --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and also reproduced the failure
listed in PR rtl-optimization/58220 and verified the fix with it.
Committed as r201941:
Index: final.c
,
||tejohnson at google dot com
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
I hit the "verify_flow_info: Wrong probability of edge" error in a
profiledbootstrap. I triaged this down to the following commit,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #4 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:05 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> Teresa Johnson changed:
>
>W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, pa...@matos-sorge.com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> --- Comment #9 from Paulo J. Matos ---
> I didn't manage to reproduce the bug yet. With
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #11 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, pa...@matos-sorge.com
> wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>>
>> --- Comment #9 from Paulo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson ---
Created attachment 31154
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31154&action=edit
blocksort.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #17 from Teresa Johnson ---
Created attachment 31155
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31155&action=edit
blocksort.gcda
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson ---
Just hit this same error with cpu2006 bzip2. The .i and .gcda are attached.
Reproduce with:
gcc -c -fprofile-use -O2 blocksort.i
blocksort.c:1136:1: internal compiler error: in edge_badness, at
ipa-inline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #19 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> --- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson ---
> Just hit this same error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #23 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM, ubizjak at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> --- Comment #22 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:10 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
>
> --- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
> Reproduced with cr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:10 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The ICE with -freorder-blocks-and-par
ler outgoing_edges_match
should avoid calling old_insns_match_p on these instruction types.
Teresa
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:41 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
>
> --- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
> On Thu, Nov 21,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson ---
I will take a look and report back. -freorder-blocks-and-partition was
recently enabled by default, which presumably exposed this issue.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:21 AM, octoploid at yandex do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> I will take a look and report back. -freorder-blocks-and-partition was
> recently enabled by default, which presumably exposed this issue.
The issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
This seems like a separate issue - can you give me a reproducer? The
attached minimized test case does not hit this.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
I can't reproduce this one using your source/profles and command line
(using a trunk updated to head last night plus my fix for the assert).
I verified that splitting is kicking in, but no error occurs. Do yo
?id=59542
>
> Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
> CC| |tejohnson at google dot com
>
> --
> You a
---
>> CC||tejohnson at google dot com
>>
>> --
>> You are receiving this mail because:
>> You are on the CC list for the bug.
Here is the patch that fixes it, and I am currently regression testing:
Teresa
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41852
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
I cannot reproduce this bug. The original test case cannot be used
because the gcda format is old, but I also cannot reproduce a problem
using the sms-3.c test either. I just looked at the haifa-sched.c
sourc
org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> Jan Hubicka changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
>
> CC| |tejohnson at google dot
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #17 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
01:28:47 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #16 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
01:33:43 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
01:52:45 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15 01:42:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #22 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
02:46:20 UTC ---
Ok, will see if I can submit that one tomorrow then, after double
checking the performance.
Teresa
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:01 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #23 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
06:44:00 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #25 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
14:34:10 UTC ---
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:56 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #24 from J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #26 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
22:42:12 UTC ---
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:56 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-16
18:03:08 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55417
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-21
05:51:12 UTC ---
The following patch should fix it. I am running regression testing
now, but am leaving town imminently for several days and can send the
patch for review when I get back Sunday
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-30
17:38:07 UTC ---
Working on reproducing right now. Teresa
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:20 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-30
22:05:22 UTC ---
Found the issue. Doing final testing, but the patch is below. FTR, I
couldn't do a slim-lto-bootstrap, it appears this config file is not
yet committed to trunk? Reproduced wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-01
07:12:24 UTC ---
Hmm, I'm not sure how that assert can be hit, since we would have
returned earlier if none of the files being merged has any profile
runs. Presumably any profile run should hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #9 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-01
16:38:25 UTC ---
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:01 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
>
> --- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #154 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-11
19:30:53 UTC ---
What was the size of the gcc lto/pgo binary before the change to use the
histogram? Was it close to the gcc 4.7 lto/pgo size? In that case that is a
very large increase, ~25%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #156 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-12
00:00:17 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
>
> --- Comment #155 from Markus Trippelsdorf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #158 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-12
18:59:56 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:43 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
>
> --- Comment #157 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2012-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
14:45:01 UTC ---
I'm really surprised that using --param hot-bb-count-ws-permille=950 didn't
help, since even fewer things should look hot enough to inline than before the
revision.
Would yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
14:49:19 UTC ---
Hi Markus,
Are you sure you have my subsequent fixes patched in, to make sure the
histogram is getting streamed through the LTO files? This was the
behavior I saw when I was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
15:02:55 UTC ---
Ok, I will download tramp3d-v4 right now and see what is going on. Can
you send me the full set of options you are using to compile it?
Teresa
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
15:50:05 UTC ---
Reproduced. Looks like somehow my fix to stream this through LTO is
not working properly. I see that the min count is valid when
generating the .o file, but goes to zero when w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
18:23:08 UTC ---
Dumb mistake in my previous fix to the lto support. Here is the patch
that fixes it, I will submit for review after regression testing
completes:
Index: lto-cgraph.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #11 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
22:16:19 UTC ---
Do you happen to know what it was with lto/pgo before the change? Should be
roughly equivalent to hot-bb-count-ws-permille=970 from what I saw in your
profiles. What size incr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
15:49:03 UTC ---
In that thread, I had asked:
---
If you prefer, I can simply inline the popcount/clz functionality into
gcov-io.c directly (or at least when not using recent versions of
GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
16:24:13 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2012-12-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #9 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
16:31:08 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:25 AM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
22:49:20 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:41 PM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #11 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #13 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
06:49:50 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:41 PM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
15:07:54 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:07 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener 2012-12-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
16:44:21 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-18 17:25:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
17:07:51 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:39 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #21 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
17:35:08 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-21
16:26:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 16:15:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #22 from Teresa Johnson 2013-01-11
18:18:48 UTC ---
Hi Honza,
I ran a number of experiments at different thresholds, and found that
performance starts dropping pretty quickly as the working set
threshold is dropped, even to
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
Created attachment 32709
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32709&action=edit
t.C
We ran into a runtime failure that was tracked down to the jump threading
performed during t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson ---
Created attachment 32710
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32710&action=edit
t.C.078t.dom1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:46 PM, ppluzhnikov at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
>
> --- Comment #4 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #13 from Teresa Johnson ---
Jeff,
Thanks for the fix! Confirming that it does indeed fix the application
issues we hit.
Teresa
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:54 PM, law at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
The following test case does not call the default constructor when expected:
/
#include
struct Foo {
int value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
Thanks for the quick fix. Do you know if this fixed the issue I
reported in comment #2 (seg fault in a similar test case)?
Teresa
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:11 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:38 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
>
> --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
Version: 4.8.3
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P3
> Component: rtl-optimization
> Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
> Reporter: shenhan at google dot com
> CC: llozano at goog
: UNCONFIRMED
>> Severity: normal
>> Priority: P3
>> Component: rtl-optimization
>> Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
>> Reporter: shenhan at google dot com
>> CC: llozano at google dot com,
|Added
>
> CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
>| |tejohnson at google dot com
>
> --- Comment #3 from Yury Gribo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63875
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson ---
Ping. This is still an issue on trunk (as of today at r220345).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #24 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
> With r216039, I still got
>
> ../../src-trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #25 from Teresa Johnson ---
Unfortunately I can't reproduce this failure. Here's what I did:
In my gcc source:
% svn update -r r216039
In my build directory:
% ~/gcc_trunk_7/configure
--prefix=/usr/local/google/home/tejohnson/gcc_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24)
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
