https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Following PR/63679 (r232506), gimplify.c (gimplify_init_constructor) uses lots
of heuristics to choose between pushing initializers out to the constant pool
(by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #13 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Fri Mar 11 12:08:01 2016
New Revision: 234138
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234138&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR/70013
gcc:
PR tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #12 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, Martin - yes, I see.
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00680.html after
full regtest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #8 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed, the -DFOO=1 case vectorizes with -fno-tree-dominator-opts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at where the peeling happens. In both -DFOO=0 and -DFOO=1 cases,
107.ch2 peels the inner loop header, so there is an i<=max test in the outer
loop before the inner loop. However, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #5 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In the -DFOO=0 case, we have peeled an extra copy of the inner loop condition,
i <= max_7, above the loop. scalar evolution (final_value_replacement_loop)
works, because it sees the inner l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #10 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, so this fixes the ICE, generating:
SR.5_12 = MEM[(struct S0[2] *)&*.LC0].f0;
MEM[(struct S0[2] *)&*.LC0].f0 = SR.5_12;
d = *.LC0;
d$3$f0_14 = MEM[(struct S0[2] *)&*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
loopinit introduces the exit phi in much the same way for both -DFOO=0 and
-DFOO=1, so the difference is in sccp.
In the -DFOO=0 case, sccp does this (removing TODO_cleanup_cfg from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #3 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So in the not-vectorized case (-DFOO=1), we get for the inner loop:
:
# i_27 = PHI
_8 = (long unsigned int) i_27;
_9 = _8 * 4;
_11 = data_10(D) + _9;
_13 = *_11;
_14 = _13 + j_23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #9 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In analyze_access_subtree (since r147980, "New implementation of SRA", 2009):
else if (root->grp_write || TREE_CODE (root->base) == PARM_DECL)
root->grp_unscalariz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*second* half, sorry. grp_to_be_replaced is here true, but
grp_unscalarized_data is false, so handle_unscalarized_data_in_subtree sets
sad->refreshed=UDH_LEFT and we build the access to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #6 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ugh, initializing the scalar replacement for the first half of d, with a value
read from the first half of d (should be from the first half of *.LC0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #5 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Prior to SRA, we have
d = *.LC0;
d$0$f0_7 = MEM[(struct S0[2] *)&*.LC0].f0;
e$f0_9 = MEM[(struct S0[2] *)&d + 3B].f0;
_3 = (int) d$0$f0_7;
c = _3;
_5 = (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #87 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Great, many thanks for the tests, I was worried if we had hit another distinct
issue. (Of course this would be better on gcc-patches!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #84 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bah. Do you normally use -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations? With
-funknown-commons, did you try with/out aggressive loop opts?
Powerpc{,64}{be,le} ?
The unknown-commons testcase I included in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60632
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #82 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For those who haven't seen it, I've put forward this patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01746.html based on a suggestion
from Jakub. (Unli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65963
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #79 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #78)
>
> That would pessimize it too much IMHO.
I'm not sure how to evaluate the pessimization, given it's thought to be a
widesprea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #77 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #72)
>
> Patch as posted passed bootstrap & regtest. Adjusted according to
> comments but not tested otherwise - please some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #53 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #44)
> I don't have access to SPEC, so I can only guess... Is there maybe an
> equivalence involved, something like
Turns out the COMMON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #43 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, I plan to add a fortran-specific option for this, it's easy enough, but I
can't run the gfortran testsuite with that, because there are lots of C files
in there too, for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #39 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37726&action=edit
Proposed patch (without flag).
Here's a prototype patch, that sets TYPE_SIZE to N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #37 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #36)
> As Richard said, you can do similar (invalid too) stuff in C too, say:
> struct S { int a[1]; } s;
> in one TU and
> struct S { i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #32 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #31)
>
> Thus a "fix" for the case where treating a[i] as a[0] is the issue
> would be
>
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #27 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #23 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #20 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, hang on. In unport.fppized.f, shouldn't we be using the 'F2C/GCC COMPILER
ON PC RUNNING UNIX (LINUX,BSD386,ETC)' version? In which case X has size (1)
everywhere?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #10 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The stores are getting optimized out because equal_mem_array_ref_p considers
equal pairs of MEM_REFS like
fmcom.x[_168] and fmcom.x[_208]
That is, a ARRAY_REF whose first operand is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69380
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-eabi powerpc*-*-* |arm-none-eabi powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69352
--- Comment #9 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> There are various bugs in the r232508 change.
> The
> gcc_assert (sz0 == sz1);
> gcc_assert (max0 == max1);
> gcc_asser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69336
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #40 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Mon Jan 18 12:40:43 2016
New Revision: 232508
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232508&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Equate MEM_REFs and ARRAY_REFs in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #39 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Mon Jan 18 12:29:02 2016
New Revision: 232506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make SRA scalarize constant-pool loads
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69053
--- Comment #9 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can confirm that both Richi's patch in comment 6 and my patchlet in comment
3, pass bootstrap + check-gcc on ARM and AArch64, and fix the ICE observed on
ARM. (ICE never observed on AArch64.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67682
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69166
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69053
--- Comment #3 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, this fixes it, but I'm not sure it fixes it in the right place...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
index ee32166..bd66aa5 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69053
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
build_vector_from_val then gets called to build a vector (4) unsigned long,
from an int* (which is the right signedness and size, but being a pointer it is
not types_compatible_p).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69053
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #23 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, difficult. I'm conscious that this is stage 3, and worried about adding
too much complexity, especially if we're writing code that we'd eventually drop
in favour of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #21 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's the smallest testcase I could come up with (where SLP gets cancelled,
but we end up with fewer st2's than before)...the key seems to be things being
used in multiple places.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #20 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Would be nice to have a reduced testcase for this one.
Working on it. Sadly it's fortran :(
The SLP tree that gets cancelled, is quite big (and quite untreelike, if we
could see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #18 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, we've seen this patch fix some of the vectorizer performance regressions
we've had on some benchmarks.
On SPEC...the "SLP cancelled" case triggers all over the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #13 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, I realize a "definite" codegen improvement was maybe a bad choice of
wording. A "substantial" (albeit uncertain!) improvement, may have been more
accurate...
Howeve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #10 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This causes to FAIL the scan-tree-dump-times 'vectorizing stmts using SLP' in
slp-perm-{1,2,3,5,6,7,8,11}.c. Looking at the assembler before and after...
slp-perm-1.c: this looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #8 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Adding a check against BB SLP avoids some regressions caused by bailing out of
BB SLP when we can't then do a load/store-lanes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #6 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, I can confirm that the patch generates load-lanes/store-lanes instead of
SLP, all over the (vect) testsuite. All execution tests are passing :) so it
*may* just be a case of updating a lot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68707
--- Comment #1 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36929
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36929&action=edit
tree-vect-details dump (after patch, with SLP)
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64, arm
Created attachment 36928
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
Created attachment 36900
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36900&action=edit
tree-vect-details dump
Since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68549
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm-none-eabi
Created attachment 36738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36738&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Starting with r230365, build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65963
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I confirm the testcase fails execution on armeb-none-eabi (also at -O0), but it
does so both with and without the patch to tree-scalar-evolution.c, which did
not change codegen (at -O2 -ftree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65963
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Thu Nov 5 18:39:38 2015
New Revision: 229825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] tree-scalar-evolution.c: Handle L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68182
--- Comment #1 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36636
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36636&action=edit
Preprocessed source (compressed)
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64
Target: x86_64
Preprocessed source attached; command-line
$ /work/alalaw01/build/./gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56118
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68165
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I believe these two C functions are equivalent:
typedef float __attribute__((__vector_size__ (2 * sizeof(float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sure, but gcc exploits undefinedness of multiply, so rewriting shift to
multiply is not equivalent in the general case :(.
One way forward might be to make definedness of overflow a bit finer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So (a << CONSTANT) is not equivalent to a * (1<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67683
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57558
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's another example, extracted from another benchmark - it vectorizes if
INDEX is defined to 'long' but not if INDEX is 'short':
#include
unsigned char *t_run_test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681
--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Being stupid here, but why does the outer loop having multiple exits matter -
it's the inner loop that should be vectorized?
FOO was a macro used to selectively make the test i>max d
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 53947
Target Milestone: ---
This testcase:
void test (unsigned char *data, int max)
{
unsigned short val = 0xcdef
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
This code:
void
test (int*__restrict a, int*__restrict b
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The inner loop here:
void addlog2 (int *data)
{
int i = 1;
for (int j=0; j<=30; j++) {
int max = 1 << j;
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Fixed for GCC 6.
Indeed. I note that the same testcase does _not_ SLP/vectorize if I use
consecutive indices:
void
test (int*__restrict a,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #13 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Fri Sep 18 10:55:11 2015
New Revision: 227901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
completely_scalarize arrays as well as recor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63870
--- Comment #10 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Tue Sep 8 19:43:39 2015
New Revision: 227557
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227557&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ARM/AArch64 Testsuite] Add float16 lane_f16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #12 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Fri Aug 28 15:04:17 2015
New Revision: 227303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert: completely_scalarize arrays as well as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Thu Aug 27 15:40:10 2015
New Revision: 227265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
completely_scalarize arrays as well as reco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #37 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, no it's not the hashing - that pretty much ignores all types. It's the
comparison in hashable_expr_equal_p, which just uses operand_equal_p,
specifically this part (in fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #35 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So it should be happening in dom2. On x86, input to dom2 is
vect_cst_.9_31 = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
[...]MEM[(int *)&a] = vect_cst_.9_31;
[...]vect__13.3_20 = MEM[(int *)&a];
resu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66964
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No new regressions bootstrapping that path on gcc-5-branch (--with-arch=armv7-a
--with-fpu=neon-fp16 --with-float=hard). However, compiling the testcase with
-dp reveals the bad strd'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66964
--- Comment #6 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bootstrap+test in progress FYI. However, that patch *does not* fix this
failure; there must be some other route.
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 47562
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm
Lots of ARM neon intrinsics are implemented using builtins backing onto
patterns in neon.md. These are opaque to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65956
--- Comment #6 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Mon Jul 6 17:37:50 2015
New Revision: 225470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r225466: tests from 'Fix eipa_sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65956
--- Comment #5 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Mon Jul 6 17:32:07 2015
New Revision: 225469
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225469&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-06 Alan Lawrence
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65956
--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Mon Jul 6 17:06:00 2015
New Revision: 225466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix eipa_src AAPCS issue (PR target/65956)
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65956
--- Comment #3 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Mon Jul 6 16:58:16 2015
New Revision: 225465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225465&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR/65956 AAPCS update for alignment attrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 65946, which changed state.
Bug 65946 Summary: Simple loop with if-statement not vectorized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64134
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57600
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952
--- Comment #8 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #7)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > So aarch64 has no DImode vectors? Or just no DImode multiply (but it has a
> > DImo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> So aarch64 has no DImode vectors? Or just no DImode multiply (but it has a
> DImode vector shift?).
Yes, the latter.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952
--- Comment #5 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So the above example tends to get fully unrolled, but even on an example with
32 ptrs rather than 4, yes the vectorizer fails because of the multiplication -
but the multiplication is gone by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61171
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
