http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55237
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Monakov 2012-08-28
08:48:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
>
> richi, can you share this maxmem2 script?
It's available on the wiki: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/PerformanceTesting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55081
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov 2012-11-06
15:05:40 UTC ---
The code invokes undefined behavior and is invalid: accessing d[++k] implies
that modified k is less than 16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55216
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov 2012-11-06
15:06:50 UTC ---
> Enhancement request to produce a warning is filed as PR 52365.
Correction: PR 53265.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46761
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-17
12:55:03 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Fri Dec 17 12:54:59 2010
New Revision: 167980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167980
Log:
PR middle-end/46761
* graphite-clast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46761
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2010.12.22 14:32:58
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-22
14:32:58 UTC ---
Untested
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47036
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov 2010-12-24
14:19:26 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Fri Dec 24 14:19:23 2010
New Revision: 168225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168225
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/47036
* sel-sche
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47036
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
The following simple loop is no longer optimized out with 4.8 and 4.9:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int i, a = 0;
for (i=0; i < 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
The loop invokes signed integer overflow, but changing 1 to 10 still keeps
the missed optimization there.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Regressed with r192589.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57736
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Oops, submitted too soon.
echo 'f(){__builtin_ia32_rdtsc();}' | gcc -xc - -S -o-
: In function âfâ:
:1:25: internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3486
0x6d9c63 emit_move_insn(rtx_def*, rtx_
||2011-09-06
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org
||2011-09-09
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50489
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50205
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov 2011-10-18
12:36:20 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Oct 18 12:36:16 2011
New Revision: 180135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180135
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/50205
* sel-sche
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50205
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50340
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov 2011-10-19
12:46:48 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Oct 19 12:46:44 2011
New Revision: 180186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180186
Log:
2011-10-19 Andrey Belevantsev
PR rtl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50340
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50901
Bug #: 50901
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE: in build_new_op, at
cp/call.c:5016
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53154
Bug #: 53154
Summary: Template class not shadowed by member declaration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Bug #: 53265
Summary: Warn when undefined behavior implies smaller iteration
count
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov 2012-05-07
14:07:58 UTC ---
I have opened PR 53265
||2012-05-29
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.3.2
Summary|incorrect loop optimization |[4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8
|with -O2|Regression] scev
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov 2012-06-01
14:05:12 UTC ---
Marking as a duplicate of an earlier bug which is confirmed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 39851 ***
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov 2012-06-01
14:06:12 UTC ---
Marking as a duplicate of an earlier bug which is confirmed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 39851 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kjslag at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kjslag at gmail dot com
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov 2012-07-17
16:08:13 UTC ---
The failing assert was removed with the patch that fixed PR 52250.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aturjan at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52250
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov 2012-02-28
10:20:58 UTC ---
Like Andrey said, we verify that x86_64-linux bootstraps with sel-sched when
submitting patches, but I do not remember any specific figures from the times
when I did benchmarking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53081
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53085
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
||amonakov at gcc dot
||gnu.org, rguenth at gcc dot
||gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov 2012-04-26
16:20:39 UTC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88402
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88402
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
However, this may be worthwhile when one of operands is an immediate, as in
that case there's no register pressure increase, and the xor just mutates the
immediate.
Essentially, we'd change e.g.
(sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425
Bug ID: 88425
Summary: suboptimal code for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88402
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> But unfortunately today we don't manage to use the cmp-sbb trick for
> unsigned comparison against an immediate, i.e. for
>
> unsigned long baz (unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
I think gcc_qsort doesn't really change things here, validation failure implies
a logic issue in the comparator, so some step is not always working as the
author intended.
And even with gcc_qsort it's st
||2018-12-13
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Without -O, optimization passes are not enabled, even if individual -f options
are passed on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
The code shown in the opening comment looks fine to me, so please isolate the
issue further using debug counters.
Add -fdbg-cnt=if_conversion:99,if_after_combine:99 to -O1. This should lead to
broken cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
And just to be sure, can you confirm that -fno-if-conversion changes program
behavior (the testcase is not executable so I cannot check), and the issue is
not about debug info quality (i.e. that single-st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks! Should this be closed as fixed now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88481
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. I still don't see what's wrong. Are you testing only by single-stepping
in gdb, or does your program overall behave differently with/without
if-conversion?
In other words, do you see if-conversio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88568
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88593
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88593
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
It seems to avoid this sort of gotchas cleanup_cfg should
gcc_checking_assert (!dom_info_available_p (CDI_DOMINATORS));
gcc_checking_assert (!dom_info_available_p (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS));
but maybe t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88600
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88698
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
As discussed with Andrew offline, the real problem is creating a path where
stack pointer is decremented twice - that is really not supposed to happen (so
the issue could appear even in absence of REG_AR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> The startup overhead isn't the problem. The asymptotic performance is
> really bad, too. (I hope I didn't botch my test, though. It's vaguely
> based on w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yeah, on GCC users' side I think there's a demand for both: treating UB as
unreachable (e.g. on tiny systems with heavy program size constraints) and
transforming UB to a trap briefly annotated with sourc
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Performance difference between libc strlen and x86 rep-scasb has grown too
large and seems unlikely to improve anytime soon.
On most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88793
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> I think it's fair to raise the question if gcc should not use scasb/cmpsb by
> default (I thought there was a bug for that but apparently there isn't?).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC (and Clang) rejects an attempt to create a transparent union corresponding
to an SSE register:
typedef unsigned long u64x2 __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88955
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #0)
> Adding a dummy __int128 field makes GCC accept the code (but such workaround
> won't work for wider vectors, or on 32-bit).
But this causes the union to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88955
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Note, without the attribute gcc passes the union on an SSE register, so it
doesn't look like TImode on the union matters (otherwise it would be passed via
rdx:rax register pair):
typedef unsigned long u6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89060
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The patch for PR 71560 changed the wording in "Cast to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
I don't think it's appropriate to say "creates a compound literal". My
preference would be:
Unlike a compound literal, a cast to a union yields an rvalue like standard
casts do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
My concern is that the cast does not "create a compound literal": what it
creates is an object, more specifically, an unnamed temporary object in
automatic storage with unspecified lifetime [1]. A compou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88698
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Feb 4 15:00:41 2019
New Revision: 268522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268522&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
doc: showcase a "union of vectors" pattern (PR 88698)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 88698, which changed state.
Bug 88698 Summary: Relax generic vector conversions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88698
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88698
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Monakov ---
Well, the asm with the xor was just to make the testcase more-obviously-broken,
it's still broken when %eax is clobbered in a more subtle way, like via a
libcall for integer division like in earlier exam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89208
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84659
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amonakov at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84659
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Apr 11 10:48:42 2018
New Revision: 259314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix PR 84659 references in ChangeLog files
Modified:
trunk/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84301
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Apr 11 14:32:32 2018
New Revision: 259321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sched-rgn: run add_branch_dependencies for sel-sched (PR 84301)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Apr 11 14:36:04 2018
New Revision: 259322
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259322&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sched-deps: respect deps->readonly in macro-fusion (PR 84566)
at gcc dot gnu.org |amonakov at gcc dot
gnu.org
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in
|create_pre_exit, at |create_pre_exit, at
|mode-switching.c:451|mode-switching.c:451
Known to fail|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 84566, which changed state.
Bug 84566 Summary: error: qsort comparator not anti-commutative: -1, -1 on
aarch64 in sched1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 84566, which changed state.
Bug 84566 Summary: error: qsort comparator not anti-commutative: -1, -1 on
aarch64 in sched1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84566
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amonakov at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. Judging from the backtrace, we shouldn't call cleanup_cfg after
dominators are computed: it will invalidate dominators without freeing or
fixing them. I wonder if that&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Apr 12 15:40:44 2018
New Revision: 259348
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259348&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: move cleanup_cfg before calculate_dominance_info (PR 853
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84659
Bug 84659 depends on bug 85354, which changed state.
Bug 85354 Summary: [8 regression] ICE with gcc.dg/graphite/pr84872.c starting
with r259313
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85354
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amonakov at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
The testcase is not easily reproducible because the rs6000 backend has some
implicit dependencies on capabilities of configure-time binutils, and they are
not visible as 'gcc -v' flags.
So, to reproduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Or as Jakub (thanks!) noted on IRC, gcc/auto-host.h from the build tree may be
also helpful and simpler for us to work with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85416
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85416
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
This is most likely a variant of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421121
so hitting this bug requires a specific CPU model.
It looks as if SSE-AVX transition penalties appear when switc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85416
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Or rather like this:
diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c
index 95e1e0df2d5..732705c0385 100644
--- a/gcc/df-scan.c
+++ b/gcc/df-scan.c
@@ -3207,11 +3207,11 @@ df_insn_refs_collect (struct df_colle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Unfortunately the above doesn't fully address the issue, as schedulers and
other passes still have no idea that DF makes those assumptions and will allow
reordering of asms:
register int r asm("ebx");
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85423
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
Bug 80463 depends on bug 85423, which changed state.
Bug 85423 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at
sel-sched.c:6403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85423
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 85423, which changed state.
Bug 85423 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in code_motion_process_successors, at
sel-sched.c:6403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85423
What|Removed
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
I'm not sure Richard is correct about the definition of volatile asms: similar
to reads of volatile objects, volatile asms can produce diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84842
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. I think the root cause on this x86_64 testcase is different.
Arseny, in the meantime if by chance you have another x86_64 variant of this
failure that doesn't require -funroll-all-loops, please
||2018-05-06
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks||84301
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
101 - 200 of 1199 matches
Mail list logo
