https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fails for me with -O2 --param=tree-reassoc-width=4.
With -fno-if-conversion it doesn't fail but I don't see what the if-conversion
passes do wrong, if anything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83193
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 9 15:42:10 2018
New Revision: 258389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258389&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/83193: Do not print arch/cpu hin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84780
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A carry-setting instruction gets deleted. Among the disassembly the non-failing
assembly has this:
cmp x13, 0
asr w0, w0, w4
csetw4, ne
sxtwx0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, the epilogue expansion in arm.md hits the HAVE_return path and does:
emit_jump_insn (gen_return ());
with a comment saying:
/* HAVE_return is testing for USE_RETURN_INSN (FALSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84164
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 84845 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84845
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84164
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
To give an updated: I'm awaiting approval of the aarch64 parts of my patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg00392.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
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=82518
--- Comment #52 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Mar 20 17:13:16 2018
New Revision: 258687
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258687&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
This PR shows that we get the load/store_lan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #55 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Mar 21 09:36:24 2018
New Revision: 258708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258708&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Commit missing Changelogs for PR target/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|kyrylo.tkachov at arm dot com |
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85005
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 23 16:43:43 2018
New Revision: 258818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85026: Fix ldrsh length estimate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, will be backporting soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #56 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Mar 27 11:19:55 2018
New Revision: 258874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/82518: Return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #57 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Mar 27 13:07:22 2018
New Revision: 258879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258879&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/82518: Return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85090
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for bisecting, I'll have a look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85090
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, I don't have access to AVX512F hardware so I can't reproduce the runtime
failure.
The vector simplifications that my patch introduces look correct to me from
looking at the dumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Mar 27 16:52:10 2018
New Revision: 258894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] XFAIL gcc.target/aarch64/store_v2vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Mar 28 09:20:22 2018
New Revision: 258916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85026: Fix ldrsh length estimate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Mar 28 10:38:36 2018
New Revision: 258918
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258918&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/85026: Fix ldrsh length estimate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I wonder if we shouldn't do:
> --- gcc/explow.c 2018-01-03 21:21:39.012907765 +0100
> +++ gcc/explow.c 2018-04-04 08:58:04.7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > > I wonder if we shouldn't do:
-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
typedef __Int16x8_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87516
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Known to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87516
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87562
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|ICE
-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I get an ICE when building 502.gcc_r from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87563
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=86677
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
Giving conflicting -mcpu and -march options on aarch64 results in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88013
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=88013
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried current trunk (future GCC 9)
GCC 9 learned to avoid excessive widening during vectorisation, which is what
accounts for the large number of instructions you see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88259
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55642
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-11 14:17:33 UTC ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Dec 11 14:17:28 2012
New Revision: 194398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=194398
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55642
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54731
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55486
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55754
Bug #: 55754
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/unsigned-extend-2.c
scan-assembler ands
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55161
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56162
Bug #: 56162
Summary: PASS->FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/pmf1.C -std=c++11
execution test (occurs 2 times)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56162
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #9)
> Created attachment 37484 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Fixes the test case, in that it prevents the remat.
>
> Starting ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at breakpoint dot cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69536
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69536
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The -mfloat-abi=softfp should probably be just removed.
For hardfloat targets 'hard' will be applied by default.
For softfp targets it will be 'softfp'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69536
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> The -mfloat-abi=softfp should probably be just removed.
> For hardfloat targets 'hard' will be applied by default.
> For softfp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These rev* instructions have both Thumb1 (16-bit) and Thumb2 as well as ARM
state forms and ideally we'd want to test them all.
Currently, the test is setup to only test the Thumb1 and ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also note that this test currently fails its scan-assembler check for -marm due
to PR 67295
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.3.1, 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #22 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #21)
> Fixed.
Thanks, but I think there's been some fallout in PR 69447.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I suspect the place to start at is looking what arm_function_value does for the
lto case. This is where the code decides what register the function returns its
value based on ABI.
But I&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So during LTO compilation inside aapcs_allocate_return_reg
the pcs_variant used is ARM_PCS_AAPCS_LOCAL (/* Private call within this
compilation unit. */)
whereas for non-LTO it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #20 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> Any progress on this?
Yes, I'm testing patches for both arm and aarch64 to fix this.
I'll try to post them early next week
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #21 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patches posted at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02308.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02309.html
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm*
While doing some of the testcase splitting work for PR 65578
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*|powerpc*-*-*, aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69184
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Smaller testcase for -Ofast -floop-interchange on aarch64:
int a, b, c, e, f, g;
int d[1];
static int *h = &c;
long i;
int
fn1 (short p1)
{
return p1 + a;
}
void
fn2 ()
{
for (;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69068
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69592
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Nick,
For this failure (among others) I proposed the series at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg01713.html
that changes the PROMOTE_MODE implementation on arm to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69610
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
-time-hog, memory-hog
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
Testcase:
int a, b, c, d;
int e[1];
voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just increasing the size of 'e' avoids undefined behaviour.
The following doesn't give a warning and still shows the bug:
int a, b, c, d;
int e[100];
void
fn1 ()
{
int *f = &am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68715
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-01-07 00:00:00 |2016-2-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bisection showed this started with r228302.
But I'm not sure if that's the cause or just exposes a latent bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that -mtpcs-leaf-frame was deprecated in GCC 5 due to a number of bugs
with it: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html
There are a number of known issues with these options relating to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bisection shows this started with r226901, the big copyrename dropping patch.
I didn't investigate whether it's actually the cause of the bug or just exposes
another latent one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #11)
> Hi Kyrill,
>
> > For this failure (among others) I proposed the series at:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:50:12 2016
New Revision: 233130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #25 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:50:12 2016
New Revision: 233130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:51:35 2016
New Revision: 233131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][1/4] PR target/65932: Add testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #26 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:51:35 2016
New Revision: 233131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][1/4] PR target/65932: Add testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #27 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:54:37 2016
New Revision: 233132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][2/4] Fix operand costing logic for SMU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:54:37 2016
New Revision: 233132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][2/4] Fix operand costing logic for SMU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #16 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:56:13 2016
New Revision: 233133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[cse][3/4] Don't overwrite original rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #28 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:56:13 2016
New Revision: 233133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[cse][3/4] Don't overwrite original rtx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #29 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:57:36 2016
New Revision: 233134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][4/4] Adjust gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Feb 4 09:57:36 2016
New Revision: 233134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][4/4] Adjust gcc.target/arm/wmul-[123]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
401 - 500 of 2245 matches
Mail list logo
