https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips*
--- Comment #35 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Pinski ---
aarch64 was fixed fully with r11-4973-g54bbde550ec5 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #33 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46275300312b44e1388b86a45f1600a5a1722303
commit r10-7055-g46275300312b44e1388b86a45f1600a5a1722303
Author: Kito Cheng
Date: Tue Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #32 from Jim Wilson ---
The proposed patch looks OK to me. I suggest you submit it to gcc-patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #31 from Kito Cheng ---
Maybe we could add --param max-inline-insns-size=1 to compile flag and add
mips* and aarch64 into xfail list to make every target happy for this test
case? and if some other target fail is cause by the CLEAR_RA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #30 from Kito Cheng ---
After add --param max-inline-insns-size=1 to compile flags, x86, x86_64, rv32,
rv64, nds32 and arm are "Deleted redundant store" at dse1.
But mips, mips64 and aarch64 still not pass the scan testing since tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #28 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Bug 90883 depends on bug 92328, which changed state.
Bug 92328 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in eliminate_stmt, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:5497
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92328
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 11 13:10:15 2019
New Revision: 276882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276882&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90883
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25)
> The FRE redundant store removal went away in r273135 aka PR91091 fix.
I'll see whether I can do something about FRE. Redundant store removal
there isn't a go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The FRE redundant store removal went away in r273135 aka PR91091 fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #23 from Martin Sebor ---
I get the same failure with -m32 -mtune=generic:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /ssd/build/gcc-svn/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++
-B/ssd/buil
d/gcc-svn/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/src/gcc/svn/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The test is somewhat sensitive to target bits that select between various
strategies for implementing mem* routines.
Can you try with -mtune=generic? If that works, I can adjust the testcase
appropriately
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just to be clear, the expansion in question happens very early, essentially
pre-gimple, not at the gimple/RTL border and it's driven by a target macro.
I guess another approach would be to write the whole
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #19 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Surely the real problem is that the expansion doesn't really understand about
the 'don't care' location and that we can therefore put any value in that?
That additional knowledge would allow the earlier
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's the aarch64's definition of CLEAR_RATIO that's coming into play here.
The hole in the structure is critical here to show the DSE pessimization.
Changing the size of the object to something "nice" and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #17 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #16)
> The issue here (of course) is that aarch64 has a different set of defaults
> for when to open-code vs loop vs function call. My attempts to pick a
> better size for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The issue here (of course) is that aarch64 has a different set of defaults for
when to open-code vs loop vs function call. My attempts to pick a better size
for the objects results in failures on other ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Jul 2 23:01:53 2019
New Revision: 272949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90883
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr90883.c: Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jun 27 02:42:30 2019
New Revision: 272726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272726&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90883
* tree-ssa-dse.c (delete_dead_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jun 27 02:41:27 2019
New Revision: 272725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272725&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90883
* tree-ssa-dse.c (delete_dead_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jun 26 21:36:27 2019
New Revision: 272717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272717&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90883
* tree-ssa-alias.c (stmt_kills_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Oh, yea, I kept looking at this from a DSE lens in which case it's the earlier
store that is partially dead.
But if we're storing the same value, then the latter store is totally dead and
removing the latte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> slow ()
> {
> struct C D.25898;
> struct C D.29462;
>
> ;; basic block 2, loop depth 0, count 1073741824 (estimated locally), maybe
> hot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On June 14, 2019 2:27:22 PM GMT+02:00, "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
>
>--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
>(In reply to Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> ...I also wonder why SRA does not elide the aggregate copy.
SRA has a special condition not to attempt to totally scalarize array
of chars, so that it does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90883
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
34 matches
Mail list logo
