http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47315
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||changpeng.fang at amd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49365
--- Comment #5 from Changpeng Fang 2011-06-14
22:22:11 UTC ---
It seems there is a prefetch generation bug on Bulldozer.
With -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -march=bdver1
-fprefetch-loop-arrays, I got a normal timing of 795s.
Howev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49089
--- Comment #1 from Changpeng Fang 2011-05-20
18:01:29 UTC ---
Apparently, this default option setting should only apply to systems that
splitting loads is bebeficial:
config/i386/i386.c(ix86_option_override_internal):
if (!(target_flags_explic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49089
Summary: Regression on CFP2006 on Bulldozer From Splitting AVX
32-byte Unaligned Loads
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48487
Summary: Multiple Definition of Labels in Inlining Assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47037
--- Comment #8 from Changpeng Fang 2011-01-03
22:30:22 UTC ---
>
> Which instructions are missing in Bobcat?
At least 3DNow instructions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47037
--- Comment #6 from Changpeng Fang 2011-01-03
21:59:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Does your glibc have CPU specific optimizations?
I don't think so.
The OS is SLES 11, SP1. The machine (bobcat) indeed does not
support some instructions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47037
--- Comment #4 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-23
18:08:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Can you supply a simplified test case?
>
The difficulty is that the bug only shows up on a new AMD system (bobcat). The
compiled binary on bobcat can run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47037
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|465.tonto Segmentation |465.tonto Segmentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47037
--- Comment #1 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-22
00:55:35 UTC ---
Initially I thought it is a glibc bug, but seems it is not:
(1) A workaround flag is -fno-caller-saves
(2) The compile binary (NOTE: with -static) runs correctly on other systems
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47037
Summary: 465.tonto Segmentation Fault in memset
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #22 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-10
22:20:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Does this fix tonto ?
The patch fixed the 465.tonto test miscompare when applied to
the current gcc 4.6 trunk!
Thanks,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46506
--- Comment #9 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-08
00:54:08 UTC ---
This is not a optimization bug because it fails with -O0.
I am seeking a working src_alt. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46506
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||changpeng.fang at amd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
--- Comment #2 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-07
23:12:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It does not seem to affect all SPEC testers as Rev. 167317 is already quite
> some old (= 2010-11-30) and I do not have seen any other report. (Cf. for
> in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829
--- Comment #7 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-07
22:42:26 UTC ---
If you compile with dispatch scheduling enabled (together with -march=bdver1),
both test cases attached PASS.
gcc -O2 -fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure -mdispatch-scheduler -march=bd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46842
Summary: 465.tonto test run miscompares (even with -O0)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46829
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||changpeng.fang at amd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46793
--- Comment #4 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-03
21:24:06 UTC ---
Thanks, I understand the issue now.
Yes, -fschedule-insns and -fsched-pressure should be a paired options for
x86. -fsched-pressure does not solve the -m32 issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46793
--- Comment #2 from Changpeng Fang 2010-12-03
20:52:11 UTC ---
This bug should be fixed.
We are trying to make -fschedule-insns default for x86, and this enablement
causes
bootstrapping failure at this point.
Of course we can work around this b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46793
Summary: -fschedule-insns causes ICE in compiling zlib/trees.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45022
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45270
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44503
Changpeng Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43657
--- Comment #4 from Changpeng Fang 2010-10-19
21:27:46 UTC ---
for (k = 0; k < 32; k++)
{
res = 0;
for (j = 0; j < 32; j++)
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
{
next = a[i][j];
res = c > cond_ar
27 matches
Mail list logo
