[Bug target/43902] suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate

2010-06-16 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #12 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-17 04:29 --- Subject: Re: suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 13:29 +, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Could you retest the MIPS fixed-point testcases with the obvious fix?

[Bug target/43902] suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate

2010-06-15 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #10 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-16 06:30 --- Subject: Re: suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 20:21 +, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > What do you think? Please let me know what your MIPS tests turned up.

[Bug target/43902] suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate

2010-06-07 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #8 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-07 22:18 --- Subject: Re: suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 21:34 +, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Jim, are you still working on this or should I pick it up? I'm worki

[Bug target/43902] suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate

2010-05-03 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #3 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-05-03 22:28 --- Subject: Re: suboptimal MIPS widening multiply accumulate On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:33 +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > For more general optimization you might want to move all this code to > th

[Bug debug/43828] Emit debug info allowing inlined functions to show in stack traces

2010-04-23 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #3 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-23 22:40 --- Subject: Re: New: Emit debug info allowing inlined functions to show in stack traces On 04/21/2010 02:26 AM, scovich at gmail dot com wrote: > It would be very nice if gcc emitted debug information that allo

[Bug middle-end/43760] [4.6 regression] New test failures

2010-04-19 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #4 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-20 01:54 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] New test failures On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 00:01 +, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote: > Any ideas on how to fix the compiler? The best idea I could come up with was > to chec

[Bug driver/43687] Unexpected error message for bad command line argument

2010-04-09 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #5 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-09 22:16 --- Subject: Re: Unexpected error message for bad command line argument On 04/09/2010 02:34 PM, wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > POSIX says that for command line arguments "-a -d", "-d -a

[Bug rtl-optimization/43520] gcc.dg/pr43058.c uses way too memory on ia64

2010-03-25 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #3 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-25 23:21 --- Subject: Re: gcc.dg/pr43058.c uses way too memory on ia64 On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 19:05 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Did you test earlier versions of GCC with the testcase? I hadn't gotte

[Bug target/42040] [ia64] Inappropriate address spills

2010-03-22 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #13 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-23 02:11 --- Subject: Re: [ia64] Inappropriate address spills On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 20:48 +, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote: > Since the proposed patch to meant to address non-optimimal code generation I > deci

[Bug target/42040] [ia64] Inappropriate address spills

2010-03-17 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #11 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-18 00:12 --- Subject: Re: [ia64] Inappropriate address spills On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 23:47 +, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote: > Reading Richard's initial comment I thought the problem was that the code was > (

[Bug target/42040] [ia64] Inappropriate address spills

2010-03-17 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #9 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-17 23:25 --- Subject: Re: [ia64] Inappropriate address spills On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 22:09 +, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote: > I tried the patch and didn't have any problem bootstrapping and I didn't see >

[Bug target/43348] [4.4 regression] ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2604

2010-03-16 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #6 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-17 01:46 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.4 regression] ICE in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2604 The testcase has >if (newCapacity > std::numeric_limits::max() / sizeof(T)) > do { *(int *)(

[Bug target/42040] [ia64] Inappropriate address spills

2010-03-13 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #5 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-13 08:23 --- Subject: Re: [ia64] Inappropriate address spills On third thought... The code here makes sense if we were having problems with invalid constant recombinations. symbol+const gets split by ia64_expand_move into

[Bug target/42040] [ia64] Inappropriate address spills

2010-03-12 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #4 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-13 03:16 --- Subject: Re: [ia64] Inappropriate address spills Or maybe we should just accept any constant here? I tried that, and for typedef struct table { int a; int b; int c; } table; extern table mv_tables[10]; void

[Bug target/42040] [ia64] Inappropriate address spills

2010-03-12 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #2 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-13 03:03 --- Subject: Re: [ia64] Inappropriate address spills This broke between gcc-4.0.0 and gcc-4.1.2. It appears to be the patch for PR 28490. There is a test in ia64_legitimate_constant_p for symbol +offset, where we

[Bug target/30282] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 cause red zone to be used when there is none

2010-02-05 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #11 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-06 06:23 --- Subject: Re: Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 cause red zone to be used when there is none On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 10:48 +, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > I've been testing the attach

[Bug rtl-optimization/30688] Branch registers loaded too late on ia64

2009-03-16 Thread wilson at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #6 from wilson at codesourcery dot com 2009-03-16 19:07 --- Subject: Re: Branch registers loaded too late on ia64 steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-16 08:46 > --- > Can someone point me to