http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-27
20:46:58 UTC ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02265.html
Any testing, especially on strict-alignment platforms I do not have acce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-27
20:47:21 UTC ---
I have proposed a patch on the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02265.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55477
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:41 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:43 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55448
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:44 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55415
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
16:11:43 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Nov 30 16:11:33 2012
New Revision: 193998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193998
Log:
2012-11-30 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54470
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-30
17:49:07 UTC ---
The problem is that whereas on other platforms, hiphip4 looks like:
hiphip4 (struct S s)
{
void (*) (struct S *) _2;
:
_2 = s.f;
_2 (&s);
return;
}
on hpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55415
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55448
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55590
Bug #: 55590
Summary: SRA still produces unnecessarily unaligned memory
accesses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55590
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-06
16:58:58 UTC ---
Mine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55590
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
12:50:46 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 7 12:50:43 2012
New Revision: 194300
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194300
Log:
2012-12-07 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
13:05:57 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 7 13:05:52 2012
New Revision: 194301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194301
Log:
2012-12-07 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55590
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55614
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
14:56:15 UTC ---
As far as I can remember, my changes in revision 186501 depended on
previous work in expander and cannot be simply backported without
those prerequisites (or breaking strict-ali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55579
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-07
14:59:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 28896
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28896
Untested patch
I'm bootstrapping and testing this patch.
||2012-12-12
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-12
16:24:37 UTC ---
OK, I'l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55579
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28896|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55683
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-14
12:14:23 UTC ---
On IRC Richi said that -fno-indirect-inlining helps which would
suggest it is mine (though that still might be coincidence). For
various reasons, I cannot work on this until We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
Bug #: 55755
Summary: Invalid VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR produced by SRA
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
||2012-12-20
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-20
14:28:07 UTC ---
Obviously mine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:06:42 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:06:38 2012
New Revision: 194682
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194682
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:21:20 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:21:14 2012
New Revision: 194684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194684
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #20 from Martin Jambor 2012-12-21
22:28:45 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 21 22:28:40 2012
New Revision: 194686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194686
Log:
2012-12-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55579
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-04
13:20:50 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 4 13:20:38 2013
New Revision: 194905
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194905
Log:
2013-01-04 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-04
14:41:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> So, beyond the creation of new debug only accesses for whole struct writes
> into
> hole if there aren't too many holes, I wonder if SRA doesn't ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55579
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-08
14:10:52 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jan 8 14:10:44 2013
New Revision: 195015
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195015
Log:
2013-01-08 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55579
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-08
18:16:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29111
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29111
Untested fix
I'm currently bootstrapping and testing this patch to fix the issue on trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-09
10:36:02 UTC ---
Unfortunately, that causes the following failures:
g++.dg/lto/20081217-2 cp_lto_20081217-2_0.o-cp_lto_20081217-2_0.o link, -O2
-flto -flto-partition=none -fuse-linker-plugin -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55913
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55882
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-10
09:48:41 UTC ---
I have bootstrapped and tested the patch from comment #11 on
sparc64-linux (gcc63 on compile farm) and there were no issues
(actually g++.old-deja/g++.law/operators23.C failed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55683
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-10
16:58:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> The acutal ICE should be fixed. Martinj, I will leave the PR open
> just to make you to double check that ipa-cp is doing properly the
> translati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-10
18:02:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > Let me look into those...
>
> Try the patch I attached to PR45375
>
I have updated to revision 195082 which I understand already has it
and
|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-10
18:14:44 UTC ---
And no wonder it did not because those failures are ICEs in
ipcp_verify_propagated_values. So that's mine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55920
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55920
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-11
16:55:54 UTC ---
The debug statements for non-DCEable variables can be easily disabled
by the following (also, yet untested) patch:
2013-01-11 Martin Jambor
* tree-sra.c (analyze_a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55920
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-15
12:18:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 29168 [details]
> gcc48-pr55920.patch
>
> Looking at the #c3 patch, I wonder if this wouldn't be more appropriate
> (untested s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55920
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-15
16:43:14 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jan 15 16:43:05 2013
New Revision: 195210
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195210
Log:
2013-01-15 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-17
11:43:18 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 17 11:43:14 2013
New Revision: 195262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195262
Log:
2013-01-17 Martin Jambor
PR
|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-18
14:26:32 UTC ---
OK, let me have a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-21
10:01:40 UTC ---
The problem is that aggregate_value_p can rely on that
invoke_set_current_function_hook has already been called which my patch
foolishly moved below it. I'm preparing a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-21
17:02:18 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 21 17:02:08 2013
New Revision: 195339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195339
Log:
2013-01-21 Martin Jambor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-21
17:09:27 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 21 17:09:22 2013
New Revision: 195340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195340
Log:
2013-01-21 Martin Jambor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-21
17:17:19 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 21 17:16:57 2013
New Revision: 195341
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195341
Log:
2013-01-21 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-24
14:54:02 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 14:53:56 2013
New Revision: 195425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195425
Log:
2013-01-24 Martin Jambor
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-24
15:41:19 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:41:04 2013
New Revision: 195429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195429
Log:
2013-01-24 Martin Jambor
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-24
16:18:35 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:18:26 2013
New Revision: 195430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195430
Log:
2013-01-24 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-25
18:32:39 UTC ---
I do have a caller of the clone (in the WPA dump):
init_.constprop.2/71 (init_.constprop.2) @0x7f10180f06f0
Type: function
...
Clone of init_/41
...
Called by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 27 14:51:17 2016
New Revision: 232877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 69355] Correct hole detection when total_scalarization fails
2016-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 28 18:04:00 2016
New Revision: 232937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 69355] Correct hole detection when total_scalarization fails
2016-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor ---
The testcase I posted to comment #19 fails also on the 4.9 branch so I
will test and commit the patch there too.
Jakub, can I close the bug afterwards or do you want to backport the
gcc/tree-dfa.c (the patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Jan 29 23:01:54 2016
New Revision: 233001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 69355] Correct hole detection when total_scalarization fails
2016-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2016-02-02
Component|libgomp |hsa
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Confirmed and mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69674
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #11)
> In remove_unreachable_nodes, just before ipa-cp, this node becomes local
> (address taken is false and local.local = true). After that, when
> ipa_propagate_frequency i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01349.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Feb 23 10:55:47 2016
New Revision: 233626
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233626&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[pr 69666] No SRA default_def replacements for unscalarizable regions
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Feb 23 12:54:44 2016
New Revision: 233629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[pr 69666] No SRA default_def replacements for unscalarizable regions
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> It may be caused by r233626.
What do you mean by "may be?" I have just double checked that if I
apply the patch to r233489 and run the test, it passes here on my
x86_
||2016-02-23
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Ah, I missed the "x86" part (when the target field is not filled in, I
always tend to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Feb 24 16:20:00 2016
New Revision: 233674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-24 Martin Jambor
revert:
2016-02-23 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
I am currently bootstrapping and testing the fix I posted as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01656.html
I am confident it will fix all of these problems (provided the issue
is a SSA_NAME sti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01824.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69674
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Feb 26 17:45:37 2016
New Revision: 233750
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233750&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[hsa/69674] Make testsuite libgomp.c/for-3.c compile with -m32
2016-02-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69568
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Feb 26 17:48:19 2016
New Revision: 233751
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233751&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[hsa/69568] Fix ld instruction type for packed data
2016-02-26 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69568
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Fixed on trunk. The hsa branch will pick this up next week as a part
of a merge from trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Feb 26 18:06:42 2016
New Revision: 233753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 69920] Prevent SRA from leaving a removed SSA_NAME in IL
2016-02-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #12)
> The Ice in 42704.c is gone on s390[x] with trunk (but not the other FAILs).
> Is the Ice below related to this bug report or is it something totally
> different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69674
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69568
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alan.lawrence at arm dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
That is what I suspected. Please have at look why
analyze_access_subtree (which has to set the grp_unscalarized_data
flag) acts differently then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 7 15:17:49 2016
New Revision: 234030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR 69666 and PR 69920
2016-03-07 Martin Jambor
PR tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 7 15:17:49 2016
New Revision: 234030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR 69666 and PR 69920
2016-03-07 Martin Jambor
PR tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
With the reverted patch re-applied, this should be again fixed
everywhere (and the fix should not be causing any new issues).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70127
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Looking at the tree dumps, I see weirdo behavior in early SRA (CCing
> Martin), where it changes:
> e.f = 1;
> e.g = 1;
> a[0] = c;
> e = a[0];
> d = e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #10)
> which is much saner. But I don't really understand why the PARM_DECL case
> that I'm adding to here is that way
SRA tries to avoid generating unnecessary aggregate
901 - 1000 of 2365 matches
Mail list logo
