[Bug tree-optimization/114932] IVopts inefficient handling of signed IV used for addressing.

2025-04-22 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 --- Comment #28 from Tianyang Chou --- Very helpful, thanks for your time. Best regards,Tianyang.Chou Replied Message From tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org[1] Date 4/20/2025 19:46 To [2] Subject [Bug

[Bug tree-optimization/114932] IVopts inefficient handling of signed IV used for addressing.

2025-04-09 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 --- Comment #26 from Tianyang Chou --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0) Hi Tamar, After reading the whole discussion, I still confused about how does the immediate offset mode generated, can you help me understanding the logic

[Bug tree-optimization/114932] IVopts inefficient handling of signed IV used for addressing.

2025-04-09 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 --- Comment #25 from Tianyang Chou --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #0) Hi Tamar, After reading the whole discussion, I still confused about how does the immediate offset mode generated, can you help me understanding the logic

[Bug tree-optimization/114932] IVopts inefficient handling of signed IV used for addressing.

2025-03-18 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 --- Comment #23 from Tianyang Chou --- (In reply to Tianyang Chou from comment #22) > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #21) > > Thus finally fixed > > Hi Tamar, > > Is there any other prerequisite patches for this patch: "perform affi

[Bug tree-optimization/114932] IVopts inefficient handling of signed IV used for addressing.

2025-03-18 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114932 Tianyang Chou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tianyang.chou at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

2025-03-14 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 --- Comment #30 from Tianyang Chou --- (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #27) > I am a bit confused with your statement. For AOSC gcc 13.2 I got 8.52 with > parameters "-g -Ofast -march=la464 -flto", and 8.76 with parameters "-g > -Ofast -marc

[Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

2025-03-06 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 Tianyang Zhou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tianyang.chou at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug target/114978] [14/15 regression] 548.exchange2_r 14%-28% regressions on Loongarch64 after gcc 14 snapshot 20240317

2025-03-06 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978 --- Comment #25 from Tianyang Zhou --- Btw, I use the latest AOSC and the system default GCC is 14.2.0 20240801

[Bug ipa/117695] lto got zero score on unixbench dhry2reg on trunk

2024-12-30 Thread tianyang.chou at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117695 Tianyang Zhou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tianyang.chou at gmail dot com --- Comm