http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58556
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Oct 1 11:05:17 2013
New Revision: 203057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite/]
2013-10-01 Kyrylo Tkachov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58556
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Jorn, can you confirm if these tests now pass on ARC?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58556
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-gnueabihf |arm-linux-gnueabihf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56738
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Is this fixed now?
Fixed on arm. Nature of the fix seems to suggest that powerpc should be fixed
as well?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59128
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
The gcc.dg/builtin-unreachable-6.c testcase fails on arm-none-eabi with:
$SRC/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/builtin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59290
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59290
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Nov 26 15:06:06 2013
New Revision: 205394
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205394&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/]
2013-11-26 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59290
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59290
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |arm-*-*
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |arm-*-*
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59316
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.* |sparc*-sun-solaris2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Nov 29 15:19:34 2013
New Revision: 205529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Maybe it works now.
PASSes on arm* now, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59285
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> Working on this again. I'm on the 4th iteration of the fix. Bootstrapping
> on ARM boxes is painfully slow :(
I could bootstrap a p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59285
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> How fast is your box? I'm using 4 processors on a calxeda system... It's
> painful, particularly when the first calxeda box&#
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
Bug 46542 depends on bug 45685, which changed state.
Bug 45685 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] missed conditional move opportunity
in loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42632
Bug 42632 depends on bug 45685, which changed state.
Bug 45685 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] missed conditional move opportunity
in loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41488
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
Bug 46542 depends on bug 45685, which changed state.
Bug 45685 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] missed conditional move opportunity
in loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42632
Bug 42632 depends on bug 45685, which changed state.
Bug 45685 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] missed conditional move opportunity
in loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45685
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
--- Comment #30 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems I had some weird tree state. It passes on trunk after doing a clean
build.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41488
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> ktkachov,
>
> It seems to be working fine for me with my arm-eabi cross compiler. Perhaps
> you could provide some more details:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
For the following code:
#define MATRIX_SIZE 512
static double a[MATRIX_SIZE][MATRIX_SIZE];
static double b[MATRIX_SIZE][MATRIX_SIZE];
static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88459
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-04-29 00:00:00 |2018-12-12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88492
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88530
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||assemble-failure
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
521.wrf_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88567
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45340
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45340&action=edit
minimal reproducer
I've reduced the file as much as I could.
ICEs for aarch64 with -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For context, this is the hot loop in 557.xz_r from SPEC2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88648
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
One of the hot loops in 510.parest_r from SPEC2017 can be approximated through:
unsigned int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45386
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45386&action=edit
aarch64-llvm output with -Ofast -mcpu=cortex-a57
I'm attaching the full LLVM aarch64
-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Currently every target defines the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88648
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Jan 10 11:36:42 2019
New Revision: 267804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267804&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ARM: fix -masm-syntax-unified (PR88648)
This a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88648
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7
-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
We&#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88833
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88836
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88838
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88839
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88847
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
btw looks likes ICC vectorises this as well as unrolling:
..B1.14:
movl (%rcx,%rbx,4), %r15d
vmovsd(%rdi,%r15,8), %xmm2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 88801, which changed state.
Bug 88801 Summary: [9 Regression] Performance regression on 473.astar on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #20 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for investigating this.
At an initial glance, I guess this is something gen_operands_ldrd_strd in
config/arm/arm.c should handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #25 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, I've reproduced the failure with the reduced testcase (aborts at -O2
but not at -O0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you all for the input.
Just to add a bit of data.
I've instrumented 510.parest_r to count the number of loop iterations to get a
feel for how much of the unrolled loop is spent i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #11)
>
> As an experiment I hacked the AArch64 assembly of the function generated
> with -funroll-loops to replace the peeled prologue version with
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 53947
Target Milestone: ---
The get_ref hot function in 525.x264_r inlines a hot helper that performs a
vector average
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88915
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Yeah, the epilogue stuff is on my list of things to revisit for GCC 10.
I think this isn't necessarily about the epilogue (the main vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88950
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #21 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So the actual hot loop in xz_r does:
typedef unsigned char __uint8_t;
typedef unsigned int __uint32_t;
typedef unsigned long long __uint64_t;
int
foo (const __uint64_t len_limit, const
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC 9 knows how to recognise vector average operations since PR 85694. Some
targets have optabs to do it in one instruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89014
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, the fix looks right.
For the rest of the assembler errors we need the patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00562.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I played around with the source to do some conservative 2x manual unrolling in
the two hottest functions in 510.parest_r (3 more-or-less identical tight FMA
loops). This was to try out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #22 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Some more experiments...
Unrolling 4x in a similar way to my previous example and not splitting the
accumulator (separate issue):
unsigned int *colnums;
double *val;
struct foostruct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 89058 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89058
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89057
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 10 09:58:57 2018
New Revision: 259266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[explow] PR target/85173: validize memory before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 10 12:59:08 2018
New Revision: 259270
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/84748: Mark *compare_cstore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 10 13:05:24 2018
New Revision: 259271
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259271&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/84748: Mark *compare_cstore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84748
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85326
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> gcc.target/arm/pr56184.C
> gcc.target/arm/pr59985.C
> gcc.target/arm/pr67989.C
> gcc.target/arm/pr54300.C
> gcc.target/arm/pr55073
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #5)
> I have been looking at this and the problem does indeed lie with the
> register not being a hard reg because aarch64_mem_pair_lanes_operand i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85326
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 17 16:34:56 2018
New Revision: 259435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64/arm] PR testsuite/85326 Avoid C++ test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85326
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 17 17:06:36 2018
New Revision: 259437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/85326
Commit missing hunk from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85483
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85483
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85483
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 20 16:31:19 2018
New Revision: 259526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259526&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/85483: Move aarch64/sve/vcond_1.c t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed a SSHR by zero is not valid.
One would hope that the optimisers would have eliminated the shift by zero by
this point but the constraints on the *aarch64_ashr_sisd_or_int_si3 pattern
need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The right-shift SIMD instructions don't allow a shift of zero. The
left-shifting ones do.
So I'd expect *aarch64_lshr_sisd_or_int_3 needs to be adjusted as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 24 16:58:49 2018
New Revision: 259614
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259614&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/85512: Tighten SIMD rig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85522
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85512
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:48:49 2018
New Revision: 259699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/85512: Tighten SIMD rig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #59 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:56:02 2018
New Revision: 259700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/82518: Return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85616
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The testcase:
__complex double
foo (__complex double a, __complex double b)
{
__complex res = a;
try {
res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70291
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu May 3 12:59:43 2018
New Revision: 259889
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259889&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[tree-complex.c] PR tree-optimization/70291
101 - 200 of 2245 matches
Mail list logo
