--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-16 22:48
---
Seems to be fixed now.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 22:10 ---
It didn't have any effect on the regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
--- Comment #8 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-10-30 20:42 ---
It looks like a patch has been checked in to fix this bug, is there any reason
we can't close this defect?
--
sje at cup dot hp dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-30 09:58 ---
Subject: Bug 41279
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 30 09:57:56 2009
New Revision: 152324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152324
Log:
PR target/41279
* cfgloopanal.c (num_loop_insns):
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 21:42 ---
I've looked at what code generation changes the jump from r151310 to r151312
(aka VTA merge) and on eon.cc at -O3 -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops on ia64-linux
the difference is that r151310 unroll something that r151312 d
--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-08 11:58 ---
I tried to reproduce this manually (on thallium:/abuild/mjambor/) but
couldn't. I just get the same execution times with or without that
patch reverted... I am not sure what this means or how to proceed from
here.
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 12:05 ---
Hm, I wonder how come we did not come across this when testing the
patch for exactly these kinds of problems in July. Anyway, I will
have a look at it.
Nevertheless, I believe we should split this bug in two so tha
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-06 10:17 ---
Most of the eon regression was due to the SRA patch. Other changes weren't
affected by the SRA patch and so have to be attributed to VTA.
See http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CFP/sb-terbium-head-64/recent.html
and http
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 16:14 ---
I'll revert the SRA fix on the tester to rule out that change for tonight.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41279
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-05 16:07 ---
Likewise effects in SPEC FP. My guess would be scheduler effects of the VTA
changes there. While compare-debug tests code generation is the same with
-g vs. -g0 nothing checks code generation differences caused by
12 matches
Mail list logo
