https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121994
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
I guess it's related to register pressure and can be tuned by adjusting
reduc_lat_mult_thr. I don't have Zen2 machine, so for simplity, I'll just
disable unroll in vectorizer for Zen2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121976
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121970
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > > >
> > > > So this seems like a target issue.
> > >
> > > Ah, I see, thanks.
> > >
> > > H.J, I think we should rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121970
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > >
> > > So this seems like a target issue.
> >
> > Ah, I see, thanks.
> >
> > H.J, I think we should remove ix86_store_max from MOVE_MAX.
>
> It failed pieces-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121970
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
> >
> > So this seems like a target issue.
>
> Ah, I see, thanks.
>
> H.J, I think we should remove ix86_store_max from MOVE_MAX.
It failed pieces-memset-46.c since
m_align is decided by MOVE_MAX_PIECES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121970
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #1)
> > Although the option is x86 specific, but I think the issue is middle-end,
> > it's related how MOVE_MAX and STORE_MAX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121970
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
According to documents, MOVE_MAX is for memory copy, STORE_BY_PIECE is for
store only
Macro: MOVE_MAX_PIECES
A C expression used by move_by_pieces to determine the largest unit a load or
store used to copy me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121970
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
Although the option is x86 specific, but I think the issue is middle-end, it's
related how MOVE_MAX and STORE_MAX_PIECES is used.
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
typedef struct
{
double ds[8];
}ds;
extern void bar (ds* );
void
foo (double* a, double* b, double* c, double* d, ds* __restrict e, int n)
{
ds tmp[2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121947
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > > Created attachment 62385 [details]
> > > A patch
> > >
> > > This is a test pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121947
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Created attachment 62385 [details]
> A patch
>
> This is a test patch:
>
> 1. Move pass_x86_cse after pass_split_all_insns.
> 2. Split 3 UNSPEC_INSN_FALSE_DEP patterns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121947
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121699
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #15)
> Release branches are open for *regression* fixes only by default.
Also reverted on releases branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-08-30
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121718
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
Let's revert it first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121718
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> Created attachment 62233 [details]
> use __builtin_fegetround.
>
> Does this help?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121718
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
So using __builtin_fegetround?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121718
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
Created attachment 62233
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62233&action=edit
use __builtin_fegetround.
Does this help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121699
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> This fixs the ICE.
>
1) Fix predicate of operands[3] in cond_ since only
const_vec_dup_operand is excepted for masked operations, and pass real
count
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121699
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
This fixs the ICE.
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md b/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md
index 175798cff69..5dbe444847f 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/predicates.md
@@ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121699
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120691
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121661
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > Looks correct in the gimple
>
> The bug only happens at -O0. At higher levels it is ok.
https://godbolt.org/z/M979
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121662
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121661
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
Looks correct in the gimple
int main (int argc, char * * D.3685)
{
[local count: 1073741824]:
# DEBUG BEGIN_STMT
# DEBUG val => __complex__ (1.0e+0, 0.0)
# DEBUG INLINE_ENTRY fun1
__builtin_dwarf_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121606
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025, haochen.jiang at intel dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121606
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Haochen Jian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121606
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> Are you using GCC16, and yes GCC16 is refactored with that logic.
In GCC15, because avx10.1 was initially set to 256-bit by default, we wanted to
prevent the mixed usage of avx512 and avx10.1, so we issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121606
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
And zen5 is not AVX10.1 capable host.
,
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
Note mevex512 option is deprecated in GCC15 and removed in GCC16.
It's because avx10.1 will enable avx512fp16, but there's no avx512fp16 on Zen5
machine, and march=native will be exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> Probably caused by r14-1902-g96c3539f2a3813
>
> - /* Special case TImode to V1TImode conversions, via V2DI. */
> - if (mode == V1TImode
> + /* Special case TImo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121274
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119876
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||16.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120957
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #3)
> I've bisected this on Zen2. It is possible that this is actually two
> different slowdowns and only the Zen2 slowdown is caused by r16-1647. I'll
> bisect on Zen3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120957
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
I've tested my commit(r16-1647) and the previous commit(r16-1646) with
-march=native -Ofast on zen3 server, and didn't find any regression for
503.bwaves_r.(we don't have zen2 machine.)
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
cat test.c
extern int c[32000], d[32000];
void s1113()
{
for (int i = 32000; i >= 0; i--) {
c[i] =
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
cat test.c
extern int c[32000], d[32000];
void s1113()
{
for (int i = 32000; i >= 0; i--) {
c[i] = d[i]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120895
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #8)
> It passes for me with -march=znver2. Hongtao, were you maybe testing with a
> compiler with default `--with-arch=`?
I'm using option -march=x86-64-v4(assume __m512 ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120895
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120815
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
Maybe we should have something like mtune=intel_p and mtune=intel_e, P-core and
E-core are quite different from each other, mtune=intel maybe not sufficient.
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
>From Intel intrinsic guide[1], there's explict "mem_addr does not need to be
aligned on any particular
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 115842, which changed state.
Bug 115842 Summary: [15/16 Regression] 6.5% slowdown of 548.exchange2_r on
Intel Ice Lake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> 9380 gcc_assert (!crtl->shrink_wrapped_separate);
>
> It hits this assert which is added by the patch, maybe this assert is not
> needed.
I mean it's added by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120694
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Could you retry on trunk? This might be a dupe of bug 120661.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 120661 ***
Yes, it's fixed by r16-1550-g9244ea4b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120694
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
stuck in the loop of ranger_cache::propagate_cache for niters.5_40
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
cat test.c
#include
typedef struct Symmetry
{
int **GFSym;
} SymmetryGHex;
void *SetupGH (int convlevel, int maxdim, int numvars)
{
int i, j;
SymmetryGHex *myGH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> I am happy it helps. I wonder if you can share details of your SPEC config.
> I.e. how you call perf (do you specify count etc) and how you handle merging
> of pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
Looks like it's fixed by r16-1521-g2ef043c5a05d99
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > > > I noticed s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||7.1.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
I can't reproduce the issue with testcase in #c1 since gcc7.1.
So closed as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92492
Bug 92492 depends on bug 92658, which changed state.
Bug 92658 Summary: x86 lacks vector extend / truncate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
What|Removed |Added
-
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
Broadcast from imm is on purpose.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87767 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #23
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
Fixed in GCC13.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Bug 92645 depends on bug 92658, which changed state.
Bug 92658 Summary: x86 lacks vector extend / truncate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92611
Bug 92611 depends on bug 92658, which changed state.
Bug 92658 Summary: x86 lacks vector extend / truncate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
What|Removed |Added
-
|RESOLVED
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||14.1.0
--- Comment #28 from Hongtao Liu ---
Fixed in GCC14.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 36844, which changed state.
Bug 36844 Summary: Vectorizer doesn't support INT<->FP conversions with
different size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36844
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96654
Bug 96654 depends on bug 36844, which changed state.
Bug 36844 Summary: Vectorizer doesn't support INT<->FP conversions with
different size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36844
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36844
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82897
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82897
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Looks like this was fixed in GCC 15:
> ```
> foo:
> .LFB7284:
> .cfi_startproc
> vmovd %edi, %xmm2
> vmovdqa32 %zmm1, %zmm4
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82897
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|--- |FIXED
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19 from Hongtao Liu ---
Looks like it's fixed by r16-170-ga670ebde399548.
Now it generates decent code as
"_Z8qustrchrPDsS_Ds":
cmp rdi, rsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120457
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #1)
> double __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
> compute_integral (double w_1[18])
> {
> double A = 0;
> double t33[2][6] = {{0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0},
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120457
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
double __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
compute_integral (double w_1[18])
{
double A = 0;
double t33[2][6] = {{0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0},
{0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0}};
double t43[2] = {0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120428
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13)
> > The inner loop is not completely unrolled since std::copy is lowered to
> > __builtin_memmove instead of __built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120428
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13)
> >
> > constexpr std::size_t ProcessChunkSize = BlockSize * OrderSize;
> >
> > std::array buffer{};
> >
> > std::byte* const bytes = reinterpret_cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120428
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> constexpr std::size_t ProcessChunkSize = BlockSize * OrderSize;
>
> std::array buffer{};
>
> std::byte* const bytes = reinterpret_cast(data);
>
> for (std::size_t i = 0; i < TotalSize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> Add --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed=2048 will eliminate those
> spills
>
> So for sra we can consider using MOVE_MAX * move_ratio as the size limit for
> Ospeed which represents real backend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 119181, which changed state.
Bug 119181 Summary: Missed vectorization due to imperfect SLP discovery for 2
grouped load with same base pointer (taken as 1 interleaved load)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120378
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
> The ifcvt'ed code before vect is:
>
> _4 = *_3;
> x.0_12 = (unsigned int) _4;
> _38 = -x.0_12;
> _15 = (int) _38;
> _16 = _15 >> 31;
> _29 = x.0_12 > 255;
> _17 = _29 ? _16 : _4;
> _18 = (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118994
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120215
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120215
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120184
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120184
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
cat test.c
int foo1(void)
{
static int foo_1;
return ++foo_1;
}
int foo2(void)
{
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118508
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118581
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119879
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|16.0
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
[r16-39 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512fp16-trunc-extendvnhf.c
On Linux/x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> (In reply to sandra from comment #2)
> > This was introduced by commit 0fec3f62b9bfc03e5088a09036791c2ac84fe0c8. I
> > wondered if there might have been a patch hun
at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #2)
> This was introduced by commit 0fec3f62b9bfc03e5088a09036791c2ac84fe0c8. I
> wondered if there might have been a patch hunk to update the example that
> didn&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao Liu ---
Let's just fix it in GCC16, either solution is ugly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> as discussed in PR111551 the SPEC train run does not include hottest loop of
> MorphologyApply, so MeanShiftImage may have same issue and auto-fdo may be
> kind of c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > > I think we need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > I think we need to disable the effect of -mno-evex512, looks like there's
> > still traces of it left?
>
> Let's ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119596
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 639 matches
Mail list logo
