https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #14 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Oct 10 15:56:07 2014
New Revision: 216096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63404
* shrink-wrap.c (move_insn_for_shrink_wrap): Don't u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sasha.levin at oracle dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #8)
> and I am curious about whether there are any performance change since this
> insn sink change.
I built/ran cpu2000 and didn't see any difference outside the noise ran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For the record the test gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_3.f03 also failed with
-O1 and -m64 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2014-09/msg00226.html).
This is fixed by the patch at
https://gcc.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #8 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #5)
> > we need to check the following
> >
> >else if (GET_CODE == CLOBBER
> > || GET_CODE (x) == USE
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #7 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #5)
> > we need to check the following
> >
>
> r215563 also introduced a miscompare on PowerPC for cpu2000 benchmark
> 254.gap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
we need to check the following
else if (GET_CODE == CLOBBER
|| GET_CODE (x) == USE
|| GET_CODE (x) == ASM_INPUT)
I will post the fix after pass x86 bootstrap and regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
sorry for causing the trouble.
the reason might be the "flag" is an implified register while it's not take
into account in current shrink-wrap reg read/write analysis.
I will revert my patch temperarily if I c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63404
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
12 matches
Mail list logo
