--- Comment #6 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-15 23:44 ---
I'm testing a fwprop patch that fixes the problem except for two unnecessary
movs at the end.
--
bernds at codesourcery dot com changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #4 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-16 10:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=20117)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20117&action=view)
A patch to fix it.
The andsi3 expander has code to do the right thing, but
avoid_expensive_constant p
--- Comment #5 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-16 15:51 ---
I believe this is exactly the same problem as PR40615.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42500
--- Comment #4 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-17 11:05 ---
It's not immediately obvious to me why the ARM mulsi3 patterns are written the
way they are - what are the earlyclobber tricks supposed to be good for?
Richard E., any clues?
--
bernds at codesourcery do
--- Comment #5 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-17 11:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=20123)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20123&action=view)
A patch to fix it.
Okay, so the pattern is written strangely because it's a two-operand mul whe
--- Comment #5 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-26 12:01 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01235.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40603
--- Comment #4 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-31 21:36 ---
Patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01536.html
Only tested on ARM (same issue as PR42496), but should also solve the ia64
problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21803
--- Comment #4 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-31 21:41 ---
A simple patch is at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01405.html
--
bernds at codesourcery dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-03-31 21:42 ---
A patch is at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01274.html
--
bernds at codesourcery dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-13 09:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=20377)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20377&action=view)
A patch to fix the problem
This seems to be due to a pattern that uses a "+" constraint
--- Comment #8 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 00:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=20382)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20382&action=view)
Another attempt
The patch that was checked in looks wrong to me. How about this one instead?
--
--- Comment #9 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-15 00:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=20383)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20383&action=view)
Maybe this one.
Actually, following the split leads to another pattern that's broken.
--
--- Comment #11 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-20 11:47
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01231.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40457
--- Comment #4 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-22 10:01 ---
Fixed now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42498
--- Comment #4 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-22 12:02 ---
I somehow managed not to check in the optabs.h change in the first commit. Can
you try again with r158643?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43848
--- Comment #7 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-26 12:11 ---
What happens if you replace the new call to df_simulate_find_noclobber_defs in
ifcvt.c with a call to df_simulate_find_defs? If that fixes the bootstrap, can
you find a testcase where this changes code generation
--- Comment #9 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-26 12:56 ---
One thing that would help would be to build just a stage1 compiler and target
libraries, then run the testsuite. That might give us a smaller testcase to
look at.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #11 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-26 13:19
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap failure for
> powerpc-apple-darwin9: cannot compute suffix of object files
>
> > One thing that would help would be to buil
--- Comment #13 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-26 22:54
---
I've tried the two versions of ifcvt.c with a powerpc-apple-darwin9 cross
compiler. Out of many megabytes of testcases, I can find only one code
generation difference with "-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
--- Comment #22 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-28 13:59
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I have forgotten to ask my question! Could it be a similar issue to that you
> fixed for pr42220?
No, that looks completely unrelated at first glance.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Comment #26 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-28 19:33
---
Ah! I think that makes sense. For some reason I only looked at the other use of
df_simulate_find_noclobber_defs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43858
--- Comment #71 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-08-06 09:57
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On 08/06/2010 11:54 AM, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #70 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 09:54 ---
> Th
--- Comment #73 from bernds at codesourcery dot com 2010-08-06 10:27
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On 08/06/2010 12:00 PM, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #72 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-08-06 10:00 ---
> No,
23 matches
Mail list logo
