subject:"\[Bug tree\-optimization\/97736\] \[9\/10\/11 Regression\] switch codegen"

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-18 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to ncm from comment #12) > As it is, your probability of failure in 9 and 10 is exactly 1.0. I don't get this? We speak a possibility that we break a stable release branch by a backport that can s

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-16 Thread ncm at cantrip dot org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #12 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- As it is, your probability of failure in 9 and 10 is exactly 1.0.

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-16 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- We usually don't backport optimization improvements, even if they fix regressions, to release branches. There are quite high risks involved.

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-16 Thread ncm at cantrip dot org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- Don't understand, the compiler we are using (9) has the regression. It looks like a trivial backport.

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-16 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-16 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to ncm from comment #6) > The referenced patch seems to have also deleted a fair bit of explanatory > comment text, including a list of possible refinements for selected targets. Sorry for that, I m

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-16 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5e303cdee1ff01e4b302ef2f913c0bdd84ab967e commit r11-5049-g5e303cdee1ff01e4b302ef2f913c0bdd84ab967e Author: Martin Liska Date: Mon

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-09 Thread ncm at cantrip dot org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #6 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- The referenced patch seems to have also deleted a fair bit of explanatory comment text, including a list of possible refinements for selected targets.

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-09 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX

[Bug tree-optimization/97736] [9/10/11 Regression] switch codegen

2020-11-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97736 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- I disagree with that resolution, expanding it as a bit test is certainly better and shorter too. And it seems even switchconv pass says that it is preferrable to expand it as bit-test, but during expansion it