https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:16:21 2017
New Revision: 252233
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252233&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make mempcpy more optimal (PR middle-end/70140).
2017-08-01 Martin Lis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:13:04 2017
New Revision: 252219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make mempcpy more optimal (PR middle-end/70140).
2017-08-01 Martin Lis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 1 17:21:29 2017
New Revision: 250789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250789&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make mempcpy more optimal (PR middle-end/70140).
2017-08-01 Martin Lisk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
So I accidentally installed an old version of patch, reverted in r250788.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Sorry for the breakage, I'm going to take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 1 11:59:27 2017
New Revision: 250771
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250771&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make mempcpy more optimal (PR middle-end/70140).
2017-08-01 Martin Lisk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #11 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > >
> > > Yep, I've noticed. It's strange for me why it's not working. I've just
> > > asked
> > > at GCC ML: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-07/msg00144.html
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> >
> > Yep, I've noticed. It's strange for me why it's not working. I've just asked
> > at GCC ML: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-07/msg00144.html
>
> It's marked as a tailcall so anything you generate af
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > > Created attachment 41772 [details]
> > > Patch candidate
> > >
> > > I'm going to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 41772 [details]
> > Patch candidate
> >
> > I'm going to prepare some test-cases for that. Does it look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Created attachment 41772 [details]
> Patch candidate
>
> I'm going to prepare some test-cases for that. Does it look good?
Yes, it now inlines small constant sizes. Howe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41772&action=edit
Patch candidate
I'm going to prepare some test-cases for that. Does it look good?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #3)
> Yes. Ignoring GLIBC internals, mempcpy is used quite infrequently. As a
> result not many targets have added highly optimized implementations. The
> targets that do have the is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I've just taken look at that and please confirm that I understand that
correctly:
1) we want to ideally a same function for expansion of memcpy and mempcpy,
where for later one we'll append calculation of ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
20 matches
Mail list logo
