https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #9)
> I tried this out with CPython's interpreter that uses tail calls with the
> patch at
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/saved/master?ref_type=heads
> applied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61120|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #9)
> I tried this out with CPython's interpreter that uses tail calls with the
> patch at
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/saved/master?ref_type=heads
> applied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61120&action=edit
A tested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61093|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61098&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr119628]$ cat x1.c
#define DONT_SAVE_REGS __attribute__((no_callee_saved_registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
no_caller_saved_registers only works with XMM and ZMM, not YMM, since YMM load
will clear the upper 256 bits of ZMM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-09
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to ak from comment #2)
> The existing attributes could just handle this case?
Caller needs to know what registers are saved by callee. But caller doesn't
know what ISAs are used by callee.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
no_calle(e|r)_saved_registers=gpr(16|32)?
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
On x86-64, r15-9029-geb26b667518c95 gave
FAIL
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: haochen.jiang at intel dot com, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
On x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #11)
> access to the respective GOT slot). Upstream binutils now silently do emit a
> route via PLT, our binutils complain. I'm not sure that upstream behaviour
> is
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler
> > ability of generating code_6_gottpoff_reloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > > It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119299
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to AK from comment #0)
...
> https://godbolt.org/z/3xh6Mxq4j
FYI,
https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/condjmp/gcc-16?ref_type=heads
generates:
.globl g1
.type g1, @func
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 gcc]$ cat /tmp/y.c
typedef char vec_t __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
extern void func1(vec_t);
extern void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119294
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
CSE turns
(insn 18 16 19 2 (set (mem/c:V16QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 19 frame)
(const_int -16 [0xfff0])) [0 MEM
[(void *)&x]+0 S16 A128])
(subreg:V16QI (reg:V4SI 111) 0)) "x.c":11:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119297
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
On x86-64, r15-7900-g622968990beee7 gave:
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr119083]$ cat x.i
long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60673
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60673&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this with
if (GENERAL_REGNO_P (hard_regno))
{
/* push is 1 byte while typical spil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Something like
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
index 661e71b032c..8e599bb22fc 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
@@ -20613,11 +20613,10 @@ ix86_calle
|NEW
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60647
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60647&action=edit
A patch to remove CREG and BREG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> > SSE_FIRST_REG is in ic86_class_likely_spilled_p because it is a
> > single-member class. It is there because of SSE4 pcmpistrm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #14)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > > Created attachment 60609 [details]
> > > An untested patch
> >
> > Hongtao, do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> Created attachment 60609 [details]
> An untested patch
Hongtao, do you have SPEC CPU2017 data on this patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60640
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60640&action=edit
A patch to remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU2017
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86
SSE_FIRST_REG was added to CLASS_LIKELY_SPILLED_P, which became
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> Created attachment 60609 [details]
> An untested patch
Tested on x86-64 with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32,}'".
There are no regressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60607|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Created attachment 60607 [details]
> A patch
>
> Here is the patch to change TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P to
> return false for x86-64.
This doesn't work:
/ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Testing this:
diff --git a/gcc/ira.cc b/gcc/ira.cc
index 885239d1b43..e93a596e2a9 100644
--- a/gcc/ira.cc
+++ b/gcc/ira.cc
@@ -2158,6 +2158,10 @@ decrease_live_ranges_number (void)
|| (targetm.small_regis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60607
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60607&action=edit
A patch
Here is the patch to change TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P to
return false for x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES was added by
commit c98f874233428d7e6ba83def7842fd703ac0ddf1
Author: James Van Artsdalen
Date: Sun Feb 9 13:28:48 1992 +
Initial revision
which became TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60590|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 60590 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Can you try this on SPEC CPU?
>
> No big impact for both O2 and Ofa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60590&action=edit
A patch
Can you try this on SPEC CPU?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
>
>
> Remove check of 2 hooks regressed
>
> gcc: gcc.target/i386/pr111673.c check-function-bodies advance
> unix/-m32: gcc: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
>
> >else if (targetm.small_register_classes_for_mode_p (GET_MODE (x)))
> > record = false;
> >else if (targetm.class_likely_spilled_p (REGNO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
i386 has
#define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
This works for x86-64:
diff --git a/gcc/cse.cc b/gcc/cse.cc
index 70d5caac4ca..786624cd890 100644
--- a/gcc/cse.cc
+++ b/gcc/cse.cc
@@ -2287,6 +2287,10 @@ hash_rtx (const_rtx x, machine_mode mode,
record
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > The cse1 pass works on aarch64, but not on x86-64.
>
> It is the fwprop1 pass, not the cse1 pass.
It is due to hash_rtx in cse.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> The cse1 pass works on aarch64, but not on x86-64.
It is the fwprop1 pass, not the cse1 pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
The cse1 pass works on aarch64, but not on x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
My current patches are at
https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/condjmp/v7?ref_type=heads
They passed GCC bootstrap and tests on x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-23
Version|14.2.1
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr47253]$ cat j5.c
void bar0 (int);
void bar1 (int);
void
foo (int i)
{
switch (i)
{
case 0: bar0 (i); break
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118802
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60462|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #53473|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118936
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > This works:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
> > index 560e6525b56..f5d46296570 100644
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118936
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
This works:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
index 560e6525b56..f5d46296570 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
@@ -8494,7 +8494,7 @@ ix86_find_all_reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #17)
>
> For reproduce, not only on ADL, the fix patch showed regression on all
> Cascade Lake/Ice Lake/Sapphire Rapids with ~2-4% for 511.povary_r with
> o2_generic_v3.
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
As of r15-7573-g11902be7a57c0c, ICE still happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118866
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118866
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60491
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60491&action=edit
A patch for arm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: richard.earnshaw at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
On some targets, LABEL_REF is used without updating LABEL_NUSES.
Arm is one of them:
if (!BARRIER_P (this_fix->i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
My current patches are at
https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/condjmp/master?ref_type=heads
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118825
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #35)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 54666 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Change ix86_find_max_used_stack_alignment to find alignments of all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093
--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60462&action=edit
An untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780
--- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #37)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23)
> > Created attachment 55424 [details]
> > An updated patch
>
> Is this patch similar to the one in PR109093#c17 ? As argued in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60458|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60457|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60458&action=edit
A patch to fold jump table with tests
I got
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr47253]$ cat j.c
void bar0 (void);
void bar1 (void);
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60454|0 |1
is obsolete|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: ubizjak at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86
ASM_OUTPUT_SYMBOL_REF in config/i386/i386.h has
#define ASM_OUTPUT_SYMBOL_REF(FILE, SYM) \
do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60448|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60446|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60445|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47253
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60445
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60445&action=edit
A patch
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr47253]$ cat y.c
void t(), f();
void
decide(bool ok)
{
if (ok)
t();
else
f();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace gave
$ cat x.c
int f (int);
int
advance (int dz)
{
if (dz > 0)
return (dz + dz) * dz;
else
return dz * f (dz);
}
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr111673]$ make x.o
/export/build/gnu/tools-bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
Bug 118753 depends on bug 117081, which changed state.
Bug 117081 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91384.c since
r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
Bug 118753 depends on bug 117082, which changed state.
Bug 117082 Summary: [15 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/stack-check-17.c
since r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > > Created attachment 60350 [details]
> > > ira: Don't increase callee-saved regi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118754
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|unknown
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 118753, 118211
Target Milestone: ---
On x86-64, r15-6807
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86
On x86-64, r15-7342-gd3627c78be116e has following regressions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> > It isn't a dup of PR 117081 since it is a different failure.
>
> But it's caused by the same commit and the same rootcause?
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117082
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60350&action=edit
ira: Don't increase callee-saved register cost by 1000x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117081
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
r15-1619-g3b9b8d6cfdf593 changes IRA to increase saving and restoring
callee-saved
register cost by REG_FREQ_MAX, which is defined as 1000. As the result, IRA
avoids
using callee-saved registers. For
void foo (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117097
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118713
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Ever confirmed|0
1 - 100 of 2729 matches
Mail list logo
