https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Mar 7 16:39:27 2016
New Revision: 234034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69052
* rtlanal.c (commuta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #14)
> Author: amker
> Date: Wed Mar 2 14:10:56 2016
> New Revision: 233907
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233907&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
>
> PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Mar 2 14:10:56 2016
New Revision: 233907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69052
* loop-invariant.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #13 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
I checked that performance is back for the whole benchmark. Thanks a lot.
Yuri.
2016-02-09 14:17 GMT+03:00 amker at gcc dot gnu.org :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
>
> --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch sent for review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00612.html
It works for the reduced test case, could you please help me to check if it
works for you original case?
Thanks,
bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #11 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #10)
> (In reply to amker from comment #9)
> > I know little about x86, is it because of generation of non-canonical rtl
> > expression after this change?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #10 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to amker from comment #9)
> I know little about x86, is it because of generation of non-canonical rtl
> expression after this change?
>
> Another question for this case is: Is it because operand o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #8)
> (In reply to amker from comment #7)
> > According to discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00190.html,
> > hook is probably not wanted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to amker from comment #7)
> According to discussion at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00190.html,
> hook is probably not wanted in this case.
> Bernd gave another proposal by moving combine b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #6)
> (In reply to amker from comment #5)
> > Not sure if stage4 is a good time for a new hook either.
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> We can try to improve i386 add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #0)
> In loop_invariant phase additional function inv_can_prop_to_addr_use which
> tried to determine if forward propagation for cheap address is possible
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #3)
> (In reply to amker from comment #2)
> > It's my change, I will look into it.
>
> Any plans on this?
Sorry for late response, I will try to get to this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's my change, I will look into it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37133&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It should be compile with -O2 -m32 options to reproduce.
20 matches
Mail list logo
