Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2018-05-07
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Smaller testcase:
void f(void
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is minimized from one of suboptimal stack consumption issues in gcc_qsort
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following should be translated as-is:
void f(int a, int b);
void g(int a, int b, int m, int s)
{
m &= s;
a
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Starting from gcc-4.5 (released in 2010) GCC emits pcmpeq for the
explicit-constructor variant (where it would previously emit a load) as well as
for a
||2018-05-16
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|WONTFIX |---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Reopening: the request to be able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80318
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed May 23 15:01:28 2018
New Revision: 260613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
df-scan: remove ad-hoc handling of global regs in asms
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 79985, which changed state.
Bug 79985 Summary: ICE in code_motion_path_driver, at sel-sched.c:6580
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
||2018-05-29
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Reopening, the issue here is way more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85961
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
To expand a bit: DOM makes the small testcase behave as if 'b' and 'ib' are
evaluated twice:
* one time, 'b' is evaluated in precision matching 'a' (either infinite or
double), and 'ib' is evaluated to 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Sorry, the above comment should have said 'b * 1e6' every time it said 'b'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85957
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Also note that both the original and the reduced testcase can be tweaked to
exhibit the surprising transformation even when -fexcess-precision=standard is
enabled. A "lazy" way is via -mpc64, but I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86026
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86026
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Tree optimizations already manage to avoid "optimizing" f_intadd, but
unfortunately on RTL types and casts are not visible in IR and various passes
make no distinction between (char*)((uintptr_t)t + o) an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
In GCC there's no way to selectively enable a few optimizations with their -f
flags at -O0 level: -O0 means that optimizations are compl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86072
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
||2018-06-08
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||7.3.0
Summary|volatile ignored on pointer |[8/9 Regression] volatile
|in C|ignored on
, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When compiling the following with -O2 -std=c++11:
struct S {
S(S&&) = default;
||2018-06-09
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
df_mw_compare has:
if (mw1->mw_reg != mw2->mw_reg)
return mw1->mw_order - mw2-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86094
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
-fabi-version=12 is not documented, not mentioned in release notes, and not
wired up in -Wabi.
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
This is the *assembler* segfaulting, not the *compiler*. The assembly produced
by trunk is not different from gcc-8 output on empty input, so it&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86174
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86175
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2018-06-21
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86311
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Jun 25 17:44:15 2018
New Revision: 262092
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262092&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc_qsort: avoid overlapping memcpy (PR 86311)
PR middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86311
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86350
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91539
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91539
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83661
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
sincos performs range reduction for the argument just once, which is fairly
important. A well-optimized sincos also shares some computations for the
sin/cos parts, as done in
https://github.com/ARM-softwa
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|builtin fma is not |[9/10 Regression] builtin
|optimized or vectorized as |fma is not optimized or
|*+ |vectorized as *+
--- Comment #1 from
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Monakov ---
Nothing, closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Monakov ---
Created attachment 46911
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46911&action=edit
patch for scaled cost calculation
Attaching a patch that implements the tactic outlined in comment #10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91899
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Noticed this issue when preparing a testcase for PR 87047. We do not simplify
(1048575ull - x) << 44 on GIMPLE:
u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Oct 2 15:37:12 2019
New Revision: 276466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ifcvt: improve cost estimation (PR 87047)
PR rtl-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] |[7/8/9 Regression]
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In the good old days when gcc was written in C, bootstrap stage2/3 enabled
-Wmissing-prototypes and so it caught attempted definitions of functions that
should be static, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91965
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
On a related thought, I wonder if we can canonicalize (x << CST) to (x * CST')
where CST' is 1<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91965
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> What exact transformation do you want? Canonicalize the constant C to
> something like C % (1 << (bitsize - N))?
I'm thinking (C << N) >>> N where '>>>' is sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92030
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82398
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Dec 13 16:30:29 2017
New Revision: 255607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: fix sel_rank_for_schedule for qsort (PR 82398)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82398
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 82398, which changed state.
Bug 82398 Summary: [8 Regression] error: qsort comparator non-negative on
sorted output: 2 in fill_vec_av_set at gcc/sel-sched.c:3725
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82398
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83459
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82407
--- Comment #2 from Alexander
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Can it be a duplicate of PR83459?
No, this is a separate issue (the root cause here is different from the issue
in sched-pressure ordering heuristic found by Jakub in the other bug).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
> (btw it appears that either the comment or the sense of the last tiebreaker
> is inverted)
I have to take that back, I was confused by the unusual tmp vs. tmp2 order:
sel_rank_for_schedule (const v
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-12-25
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org,
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|Wrong constant folding |[8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Dec 26 14:34:33 2017
New Revision: 256001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: fix zero-usefulness case in sel_rank_for_schedule (PR 83
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407
Bug 82407 depends on bug 83513, which changed state.
Bug 83513 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed (error: qsort
comparator non-negative on sorted output: 3) in fill_vec_av_set in selective
scheduler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83573
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] invalid |[6/7/8 Regression] invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83722
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83913
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. While I could not find why we blow up with Haswell tuning but not say
Sandybridge, the main problem is that with all those -fno-... flags we have a
few insns of the form rK = rN where rN is loop-i
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICAT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70952
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Code in comment #0 is also valid, it's just rather questionable (the octal
literal is \00) and most likely unintended (or intentionally misleading).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #21 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> We could cache a bool in struct function whether the function has any local
> hard register vars and just propagate that info during inlining etc. and
> jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89256
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87984
--- Comment #25 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #22)
> A function call must be assumed to clobber any call used registers of course.
> But calls already do have vops (well, const/pure don't, and I don't think we
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
This was implemented for gcc-9 via PR 82853; it seems this bug was overlooked
in the renewed discussion.
*** This bug has been marked as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vermaelen.wouter at gmail dot
com
-
||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
As far as I can tell this report was not correctly triaged 10 years ago, as
that's exactly what -mtune= is for: optimize for a given CPU wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89436
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
This was previously reported as PR 86096. Let me copy-paste my response from
there:
df_mw_compare has:
if (mw1->mw_reg != mw2->mw_reg)
return mw1->mw_order - mw2->mw_order;
Note mw_reg in the '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86096
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Feb 25 15:14:39 2019
New Revision: 269189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
df-scan: fix use of mw_order in df_mw_compare (PR 86096)
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85899
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
It appears that fallthru edges to the exit block are unusual in that they don't
obey the invariant e->dest == e->src->next_bb (i.e. next_bb may be anything).
If so, the assert in haifa-sched needs to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85899
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85899
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Fri Mar 1 16:18:04 2019
New Revision: 269319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
haifa-sched: handle fallthru edge to EXIT block (PR 85899)
-07-29 00:00:00 |2019-3-14
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Optimized to 'return 1' already in fre1.
At the same time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
C11 6.7.2.2 p4 says,
Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or
an unsigned integer type [...]
and 6.5 p7 says,
An object shall have its stored value accessed onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
... and even considering that the standard never actually says that "compatible
type" relation is transitive, and so two enums technically need not be
compatible with each other, the following should foll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43798
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43798
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Can the bogus situation be reproduced with C _Alignas?
C11 does not allow _Alignas on typedefs, so don't see how; likewise for alignas
in C++11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87273
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Apr 1 15:20:13 2019
New Revision: 270059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: remove assert in merge_fences (PR 87273)
2019-04-01 An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87273
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Apr 1 16:32:24 2019
New Revision: 270061
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270061&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: update liveness in redirect_edge_and_branch hooks (PR 86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 86928, which changed state.
Bug 86928 Summary: ICE in compute_live, at sel-sched.c:3097
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Apr 1 18:05:08 2019
New Revision: 270065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: correct reset of reset_sched_cycles_p (PR 85412)
2019-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
||2019-04-02
Blocks||86928
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amonakov at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. I assume the test should not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89916
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 11:04:22 2019
New Revision: 270087
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270087&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite: do not try to add -m32 (PR 89916)
PR testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
Bug 86928 depends on bug 89916, which changed state.
Bug 89916 Summary: New test case gcc.dg/pr86928.c fails on 64 bit targets
(r270061)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89916
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89916
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:39:22 2019
New Revision: 270095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: fixup reset of first_insn (PR 85876)
2019-04-02 Andrey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85876
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Apr 2 15:45:57 2019
New Revision: 270096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: skip outer loop in get_all_loop_exits (PR 84206)
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
We have a pseudo:SI<-hardreg:SI assignment followed by
pseudo:DF<-float(pseudo:SI) conversion, and we substitute the latter through
the former, creating a pseudo:DF<-float(hardreg:SI) insn that fails in r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Well, often sel-sched just does not discriminate hardregs and pseudos when
checking if renaming/substitution may be applied. Sure, as a matter of
efficiency we should probably disallow substitution throug
||2019-04-12
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Please provide an example, as a simple smoke-test is compiled correctly:
long f(struct
||2019-04-16
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|INVALID |---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Reopening and confirming, GCC's code looks
201 - 300 of 1199 matches
Mail list logo
