https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Mar 17 15:01:56 2017
New Revision: 246225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71437
* tree-vrp.c (simplify_stmt_for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Mar 16 19:21:33 2017
New Revision: 246208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71437
* tree-ssa-dom.c (dom_opt_dom_w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Mar 16 19:21:23 2017
New Revision: 246207
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246207&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71437
* tree-ssa-dom.c (pfn_simplify)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Mar 16 03:19:35 2017
New Revision: 246186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71437
* tree-ssa-dom.c (struct cond_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Mar 16 03:19:35 2017
New Revision: 246186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71437
* tree-ssa-dom.c (struct cond_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Converting the VRP threading into a domwalk with the appropriate callbacks is
trivial. It's a nice side benefit from some 2016 work.
Probably the biggest driver for the gcc-7 vs gcc-8 decision will be whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #14 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #13 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Proposed fix at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01981.html
It prefers symbolic range if there is no useful numeric range information.
Though I believe it is the right thing to do, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #10)
> (In reply to amker from comment #9)
> > Root cause should be in VRP, looks like the iterative algorithm depends on
> > order of ssa operands and computes diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #9)
> Root cause should be in VRP, looks like the iterative algorithm depends on
> order of ssa operands and computes different range.
Testing a patch, though is ki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Root cause should be in VRP, looks like the iterative algorithm depends on
order of ssa operands and computes different range.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #7)
> I think it's not PRE's fault. The input to PRE is already sub-optimal to be
> handled.
> Look at the source code:
>
> for( i = 0 ; i < ( I - 1 ) ; i++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think it's not PRE's fault. The input to PRE is already sub-optimal to be
handled.
Look at the source code:
for( i = 0 ; i < ( I - 1 ) ; i++ )
{
if( ( L < pL[i+1] ) &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, The input to IVOPT is different w/o the change:
Before r235817, it's like:
:
# i_153 = PHI <0(7), i_19(12)>
i.1_13 = (sizetype) i_153;
_14 = i.1_13 + 1;
_15 = _14 * 4;
_16 = pretmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> With -fwhole-program there's no regression from GCC 6.2 to current trunk.
> Without I still can see a small regression (here 0.86s vs 0.92s).
>
> Fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The issue with the optimization opportunity is that IPA reference does not
compute that GetIN does not modify pL because its analysis is restricted
to variables local to the compilation unit. Using -fwhole-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71437
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 38652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38652&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Need to be compiled with -O3 -m32 -ffast-math on x86-64.
24 matches
Mail list logo
