https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.4 |5.5
--- Comment #37 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.3 |5.4
--- Comment #36 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.2 |5.3
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |5.2
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #33 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #31)
> The test also fails on PowerPC, the 2 IVs are kept by ivopts.
On targets like ARM, the biv(i) is eliminated with biv(p). PowerPC is
different, it on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #32 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #30)
> On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
>
> Is this a prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
The test also fails on PowerPC, the 2 IVs are kept by ivopts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #30 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
Is this a problem with insn costs, or a problem in the estimatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #29 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #28)
> On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
> use 0
> address
> in statement *p_1 = 0;
>
> at position *p_1
> type int *
> base p_7
> step 4
> base object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #28 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
use 0
address
in statement *p_1 = 0;
at position *p_1
type int *
base p_7
step 4
base object (void *) p_7
related candidates
use 1
compare
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #27 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 5:24 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
>
> --- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> The generated code on PA look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The generated code on PA looks optimal to me:
>
> zdep %r25,29,30,%r28
> b .L2
> ldi 99,%r19
> .L6:
> zdep %r25,29,30,%r28
> .L2:
> addl %r26,%r28,%r28
> ld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #25 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-06, at 6:33 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Correction: we have only one IV on the PA, but it's 'i' and not 'p'.
>
> Dave, is the generated code optimimal on the PA or sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #24 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-06 6:33 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
>
> --- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> OK, this is fixed on the SPARC, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, this is fixed on the SPARC, but not on the PA where we still have 2 IVs.
Correction: we have only one IV on the PA, but it's 'i' and not 'p'.
Dave, is the generated code optimimal on the PA or should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, this is fixed on the SPARC, but not on the PA where we still have 2 IVs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Feb 6 11:17:46 2015
New Revision: 220473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220473&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/62631
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (get_shiftadd_cost):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #19)
> > The assembly is as below on sparc64:
> > f1:
> > .register %g2, #scratch
> > sllx%o1, 2, %g1
> > mov 99, %g2
> > add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The assembly is as below on sparc64:
> f1:
> .register %g2, #scratch
> sllx%o1, 2, %g1
> mov 99, %g2
> add %o0, %g1, %o0
> sub %g2, %o1, %o1
> srl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #18 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #16)
> > The cost of expression "p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) * 4" computed
> > using normal +/-/* operators on sparc64 is 18, but the cost is 32 if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
This looks a generic problem in get_shiftadd_cost to me, it ought to mimic the
algorithms in expmed.c, something like:
@@ -3597,22 +3597,26 @@ get_shiftadd_cost (tree expr, machine_mo
tree multop = TREE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The cost of expression "p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) * 4" computed
> using normal +/-/* operators on sparc64 is 18, but the cost is 32 if it is
> computed as "p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) << 2",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #15 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #14)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> > I'm about to install a patch that changes the costs on SPARC 64-bit to:
> >
> > Use 1:
> > cand costc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> I'm about to install a patch that changes the costs on SPARC 64-bit to:
>
> Use 1:
> cand costcompl. depends on
> 0 4 0in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Feb 3 09:56:45 2015
New Revision: 220369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/62631
* config/sparc/sparc.h (TARGET_HARD_MUL): Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 34308
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34308&action=edit
hppa ivopts dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|tree-optimiz
29 matches
Mail list logo
