Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
When compiling C snippet:
enum { a, b, c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed this patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-07/msg01648.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jul 26 08:44:51 2019
New Revision: 273825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 89330] Remove non-useful speculations from new_edges
2019-07-26 M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||kugan.vivekanandarajah@lina
||ro.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Feng Xue from comment #0)
> Some might be a bug, and s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91468
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg01820.html
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
When compiling the following testcase (at least at -O2 and higher),
the early tail-call pass creates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91468
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Aug 28 14:26:45 2019
New Revision: 274992
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274992&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 91468] Small fixes in ipa-cp.c and ipa-prop.c
2019-08-28 Martin Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91468
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91579
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg01949.html
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Obviously mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91835
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Thanks a lot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91842
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I don't see this in my test results. If your architecture is not
x86_64-linux (and even if it is), please fill in the host and target
Bugzilla fields appropriately. Grepping GCC sources, it seems it is
some
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
I'm testing a patch
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Bonus: do w/o gimplification...
I'll see what I can do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91832
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a simple fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01338.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
IPA-SRA transformation code gets confused by type mismatch in the K&R
C input, the call has an int where the function has a pointer
parameter and as a consequence we try to obtain an ADDR_EXPR of an SSA
name.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91831
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01345.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91832
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Sep 24 11:16:57 2019
New Revision: 276093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276093&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 91832] Do not ICE on negative offsets in ipa-sra
Hi,
IPA-SRA asser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91831
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Sep 24 11:20:57 2019
New Revision: 276094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 91831] Copy PARM_DECLs of artificial thunks
Hi,
I am quite surpris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91831
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91872
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91894
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
*** Bug 91894 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Sep 30 08:18:59 2019
New Revision: 276296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276296&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 91853] Prevent IPA-SRA ICEs on type-mismatched calls
2019-09-30 Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91842
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Oct 2 15:09:37 2019
New Revision: 276465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276465&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/91842] Skip gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-19.c on power
2019-10-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91842
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
If you
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org, nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #26 from Martin Jambor ---
With new IPA-SRA, the situation has improved quite a bit, see below
where old-ipa-sra is trunk r275981 and new-ipa-sra is trunk r275982
(arrival of new IPA-SRA):
$ /usr/bin/time -f 'real=%e user=%U' taskset
||2019-10-10
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #40 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Sebastian Peryt from comment #39)
> I have tested it on SKX with SPEC2006INT and SPEC2017INT and don't see any
> regressions.
I should have written that the patch only affects znver1 tuning by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83329
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 19 10:43:00 2017
New Revision: 255814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Added testcase for PR 83329
2017-12-19 Martin Jambor
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83329
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
We create an "artificial_thunk" for an IPA-CP clone, which is really
nothing but a thunk with skipped arguments but we do not stream its
args_to_skip because output_cgraph_opt_summary_p returns false because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, so I did not realize that duplicate_thunk_for_node does not set
clone_of but former_clone of, which is of course what it must do. I
have checked and this is the only place where we currently set
former_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Thanks, I have submitted the patch to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01457.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83378
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Not necessarily errorneous.
In this particular case, we simply lack the ability to tell deja-gnu to expect
this to pass at -O0 but expect it to fail at any higher level. We have
consciously decided to cope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 22 17:03:16 2017
New Revision: 255978
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255978&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 82027] Also stream opt_info of former_clones
2017-12-22 Martin Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 22 18:28:59 2017
New Revision: 255983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 82027] Also stream opt_info of former_clones
2017-12-22 Martin Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
We create an additional clone because the edge that brings the context
now satisfies maybe_hot_p and previously it didn't. The reason is
that the caller (which is called sort) now has frequency
NODE_FREQUENC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #44 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 12 14:06:10 2018
New Revision: 256581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Deferring FMA transformations in tight loops
2018-01-12 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #51 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Andrew Roberts from comment #50)
> with the matrix.c benchmark on Ryzen and looking at the other options when
> using -march=znver1 and -mtune=znver1
>
> mult took 225281 clocks -march=znver1 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
>
> ...
>
> The statement on which on the original testcase it warns indeed has no
> location, that was created during IPA optimizations:
> ipa_modify_call_argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
I was indeed looking at the testcase from comment #4, sorry. I will look at
the new ones (and check with the original one).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 43254
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43254&action=edit
Lost location fix
I'm testing this patch which does what Jakub suggested in comment #4. With the
patch, -fno-
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Revision 256888 caused 30% run-time regression of 519.lbm_r when
compiled with -Ofast (with generic march and
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I'm not sure if I can post any more details than what the subject
says. On AMD EPYC and Ryzen machine
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
521.wrf_r from the SPEC 2017 suite fails to link when built with -O2
-g -flto=8 (or -Ofast -g -flto=8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
January trunk revision 257023 improved a little but still loses 3.25% on gcc 6
(on Zen).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
My apologies, I forgot about this bug. I will have a look this week.
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted a WIP patch as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01765.html
I am in the process of cleaning it up for final submission once stage 1 opens
again.
Priority: P3
Component: hsa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I can see the following two libgomp failures when the testsuite is run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 45730
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45730&action=edit
Untested fix
I'm testing the attached fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89209
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg01315.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87254
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89209
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Feb 18 08:59:04 2019
New Revision: 268980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 89209] Avoid segfault in a peculiar corner case in SRA
2019-02-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89209
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89302
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Feb 21 11:00:47 2019
New Revision: 269066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[omp] Move NE_EXPR handling to omp_adjust_for_condition
2019-02-21 Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89302
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
The problem is that we now consider MEM_REFs loading a different type
than the one of the underlying DECL as V_C_E and are equally careful
about it.
I this particular case, we have statements like.
MEM[(str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> struct A { double a, b; };
> struct B : A {};
> templatevoid cp(T&a,T const&b){a=b;}
> double f(B x){
> B y; cp(y,x);
> B z; cp(z,x);
> return y.a - z.a;
> }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85459
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Given that this is related to r255510, I tried out the proof-of concept patch
from PR 85762 first too and it shrunk text size (compiled with -O3 and Monday
trunk) from 901 to 417. So very likely the same iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor ---
After a bit more thinking, I found a better spot where to treat extern inline
functions differently, I have proposed a patch in the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg02049.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I have looked at this a bit more and the problem is that thunk
inlining expands a thunk which then makes the clone_of_p() part of
cgraph_edge::verify_corresponds_to_fndecl() fail.
I must say that I found the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 45841
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45841&action=edit
Heavy handed fix
This patch fixes the verification because it stores to cgraph_node
information that the node i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> ...But in the sra pass dump that possibility is gone:
I am still double checking because it is easy to make a mistake but I
have seen a (potential) path in the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Right, I must have been looking at output of a patched compiler. Anyway, I
believe I tracked it down to a bug in how SRA propagates write flag (since
r247604). In one specific case, an access structure is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89567
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89567
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #4)
> > In the first excample, the interproceudral constant propagation pass
> > (IPA-CP) found that foo1 is so small that copying all of it might be
> > worth not pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Do you really want to match type of any field whatsoever, or better look for
> the type of a field at the particular position?
I was thinking about exactly this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed such patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00262.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Mar 7 16:03:34 2019
New Revision: 269462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269462&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Relax cgraph_node::clone_of_p to also look through former clones
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Mar 7 16:42:20 2019
New Revision: 269464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269464&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Zero local estimated benefit for cloning extern inline function
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Mar 8 22:55:20 2019
New Revision: 269517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Relax cgraph_node::clone_of_p to also look through former clones
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88235
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |7.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85459
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sun Mar 10 16:20:06 2019
New Revision: 269556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make SRA less strict with memcpy performing MEM_REFs
2019-03-10 Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sun Mar 10 16:20:06 2019
New Revision: 269556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make SRA less strict with memcpy performing MEM_REFs
2019-03-10 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sun Mar 10 16:20:06 2019
New Revision: 269556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make SRA less strict with memcpy performing MEM_REFs
2019-03-10 Martin
||2019-03-13
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
This is because we set TREE_NO_WARNING in generate_subtree_copies. I'll remove
it, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 45964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45964&action=edit
x86_64 testcase
It took me four or five evenings and is quite fragile, but finally I have an
x86_64-linux testc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed the patch on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00708.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Mar 14 16:50:50 2019
New Revision: 269687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Zero local estimated benefit for cloning extern inline function
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Mar 14 16:54:43 2019
New Revision: 269688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Zero local estimated benefit for cloning extern inline function
2019-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87525
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
My work is done here. I'm not sure if it means that we can close this, given
that the underlying problem is not "really fixed(TM)."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 18 11:28:01 2019
New Revision: 269761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add forgotten requeing in propagate_subaccesses_across_link
2019-03-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89546
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 18 11:31:52 2019
New Revision: 269762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add forgotten requeing in propagate_subaccesses_across_link
2019-03-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
True. the node that IPA-CP clones is itself a former thunk, expanded
at symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit time (which I admit is
something I did not anticipate), all the thunk information is copied
to
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I have detected a 7% regression of 525.x264_r from SPEC INTrate 2017
at -O2 and generic march/tuning on AMD EPYC (znver1) CPUs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Doh, yes, copy-paste error, sorry. The data should have been:
FAST:
Performance counter stats for 'numactl -C 0 -l specinvoke':
495413.105450 task-clock:u (msec) #0.999 CPUs utilized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 89853, which changed state.
Bug 89853 Summary: Regression of 525.x264_r at -O2 (and generic tuning) on AMD
EPYC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89853
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a patch (keeping the verifier, at least for now) on the mailing
list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00445.html
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux
As of
701 - 800 of 2365 matches
Mail list logo
