[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2019-10-16 Thread crazylht at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 Hongtao.liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com --- Comment #9 f

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2016-08-13 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Severity|n

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-03-13 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 fr

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-03-10 Thread wmi at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 --- Comment #7 from wmi at google dot com --- After looking into the problem more, I found IVOPT may not be the root cause. Even if IVOPT create a memory operand using two registers, if only the following optimizations doesn't propagate the memory

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-03-10 Thread wmi at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 --- Comment #6 from wmi at google dot com --- Created attachment 32328 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32328&action=edit 2.c

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-02-17 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, wmi at google dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 > > Bug ID: 60206 >Summary: IVOPT has no idea of inline asm >

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-02-14 Thread wmi at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 --- Comment #4 from wmi at google dot com --- > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > I think the real issue __FP_FRAC_SUB_4 needs to be fixed not to use > > inline-asm > > but normal C code. The normal C code should be a

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-02-14 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > I think the real issue __FP_FRAC_SUB_4 needs to be fixed not to use inline-asm > but normal C code. The normal C code should be able

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-02-14 Thread wmi at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 --- Comment #2 from wmi at google dot com --- This is a way to fix the problem. libgcc/soft-fp/op-4.h has provided a C version of __FP_FRAC_SUB_4, but now it is overrided by the inline asm version in config/i386/32/sfp-machine.h. But the inline as

[Bug tree-optimization/60206] IVOPT has no idea of inline asm

2014-02-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think the real issue __FP_FRAC_SUB_4 needs to be fixed not to use inline-asm but normal C code. The normal C code should be able to produce as good as the inline-asm code now too.