--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-09 13:05 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-09 13:03 ---
Subject: Bug 34012
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 9 13:02:25 2007
New Revision: 130043
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130043
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/34012
* fwprop.c (try_fwprop
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 17:05 ---
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ppc64-linux (-m64 default) and
ia64-linux. No regressions. Could you please send it to gcc-patches?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34012
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2007-11-08
06:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Pessimization caused
by fwprop
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-07 20:18 ---
> Created an attachment
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-07 20:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=14502)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14502&action=view)
gcc43-pr34012.patch
Updated patch with testcase. Paolo, are you bootstrapping/regtesting this or
should I? I ca
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-07 17:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=14499)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14499&action=view)
patch using rtx_cost
This patch uses rtx_cost instead of insn_rtx_cost, which is faster and does not
require touching i
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2007-11-07
13:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Pessimization caused
by fwprop
> BTW, why don't you use just rtx_cost instead of insn_rtx_cost?
> In each case you have an insn, so you can do single_set on it and run
> rt
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-07 13:40 ---
BTW, why don't you use just rtx_cost instead of insn_rtx_cost?
In each case you have an insn, so you can do single_set on it and run
rtx_cost (SET_SRC (set), SET) on it directly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-07 11:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=14495)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14495&action=view)
patch that fixes the bug
I'm not sure about the correctness of the i386.c hunk. The problem is that a
cost of 0 is ma
--- Comment #2 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-11-07 11:03 ---
fwprop should check costs just like combine does. Unfortunately the cost do
need a little bit of tweaking even if one implements the idea.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34012
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-07 10:24 ---
With 4.2 and earlier, we get:
movabsq $578721382704613384, %rax
movq%rsp, %rdi
movq%rax, (%rsp)
movq%rax, 8(%rsp)
movq%rax, 16(%rsp)
movq%rax, 24(%rsp
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirm
12 matches
Mail list logo
