https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29c46490de4616b911fccb34a9479f768fb51e94
commit r12-8141-g29c46490de4616b911fccb34a9479f768fb51e94
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Created attachment 52796 [details]
> gcc12-pr105253.patch
>
> Now in (untested) patch form.
> Note, the kernel still should provide __popcount[sd]i2, but in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Ah, I see, expression_expensive_p is called, but
> number_of_iterations_popcount when creating a CALL_EXPR only cares about
> TYPE_PRECISION and happily create
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is a regression (as in we don't want such a call in that case for
performance reasons and in the past we didn't emit it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, I see, expression_expensive_p is called, but number_of_iterations_popcount
when creating a CALL_EXPR only cares about TYPE_PRECISION and happily creates
__builtin_popcountl with unsigned long long argume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced to just -O2:
int
foo (unsigned long long *p)
{
int i, cnt = 0;
unsigned long long elem;
for (i = 0; i < (256 / 64); i++)
{
elem = p[i];
for (; elem; cnt++)
elem &= elem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Note, there is some code to not do this if we'd not expand the builtin inline
> since r9-4030-g06a6b46a16f9287a98aa , so I wonder what changed.
That only appli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
We're not checking for an optab here (that's on purpose IIRC). The code using
the niter analysis result is responsible to do cost checking. The builtin
is recognized via number_of_iterations_popcount.
If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
With 12.0.1 20220213, I didn't get any popcountdi2 calls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
--- Comment #3 from Khem Raj ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Two things. First the error message is for arm target but you then reference
> x86_64 target options.
>
> Second there is a loop for popcount which gets translated b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.kernel.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105253
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64 |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
17 matches
Mail list logo
