https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #12)
> fixed ?
yes, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Thu Mar 5 18:56:37 2015
New Revision: 221222
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2015-03-05 Bernd Edlinger
PR rtl-optimization/65067
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Tony Liu from comment #9)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 34955 [details]
> > Proposed Fix
> >
> > Well, I noticed that the first version of this patch ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #9 from Tony Liu ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8)
> Created attachment 34955 [details]
> Proposed Fix
>
> Well, I noticed that the first version of this patch caused
> a small but measurable decrease of code quality o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 34955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34955&action=edit
Proposed Fix
Well, I noticed that the first version of this patch caused
a small but measurable decrease of co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #7 from Tony Liu ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #6)
> Ok, I think I understand now, what is wrong.
>
> r216989 did just cause the strict-alignment code path to be executed,
> which was not the case before.
>
> Actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Ok, I think I understand now, what is wrong.
r216989 did just cause the strict-alignment code path to be executed,
which was not the case before.
Actually the extract_bit_field code is also wrong, but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
Tony Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tony.liu at arm dot com
--- Comment #5 from T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, terry.guo at arm dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
>
> --- Comment #2 from Terry Guo ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
--- Comment #2 from Terry Guo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> This looks more like a failure to use bfi rather than shifts and bit
> operations.
If the above IF clause returns false, which means we don't need to consider
stric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
13 matches
Mail list logo
