https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102485
Nicholas Piggin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npiggin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102485
--- Comment #8 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> > GCC already passes -m to the assembler though.
>
> That mostly is historic.
So? I was pointing out the compiler already tells the assembler what
instr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102485
--- Comment #9 from Nicholas Piggin ---
And upstream gas still doesn't even warn with -many!!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104671
Bug ID: 104671
Summary: -Wa,-m no longer has any effect
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104671
--- Comment #1 from Nicholas Piggin ---
The comment in recent binutils.git commit cebc89b9328 sheds some more light on
this and possibly provides a workaround in binutils for the errant .machine
directive.
The referenced gcc bug #101393 looks l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104671
--- Comment #4 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #3)
> (In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #0)
> > Commit e154242724b084380e3221df7c08fcdbd8460674 ("Don't pass -many to the
> > assembler") also added a workaroun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
Bug ID: 106895
Summary: powerpc64 strange extended inline asm behaviour with
register pairs
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169
Bug ID: 102169
Summary: powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239
Bug ID: 102239
Summary: powerpc suboptimal boolean test of contiguous bits
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Nicholas Piggin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108018
Bug ID: 108018
Summary: Wide immediate sequences not scheduled for POWER10
fusion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108239
Bug ID: 108239
Summary: -mprefixed causes too large displacements for extended
inline asm memory operands
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Bug ID: 102062
Summary: powerpc suboptimal unrolling simple array sum
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #3 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
Oh I should have specified, -O2 is the only option. If I add
-fvariable-expansion-in-unrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #5 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
Oh I should have specified, -O2 is the only option. If I add
-fvariable-expansion-in-unrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #14 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #10)
> Well, the problem is that we still generate suboptimal code on GCC 11. I
> don't know whether we want to address that or not.
>
> I suppose we aren't going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
Nicholas Piggin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
--- Comment #9 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> > > Constraints are completely the wrong tool for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
--- Comment #11 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> (In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #9)
> > I don't know why constraint is wrong and mode is right
>
> Simple: you would need O(2**T*N) constrain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106895
--- Comment #13 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12)
> > I guess that would be annoying if you couldn't have modifiers on constraints
>
> There is no such thing as "operand modifiers". There are *output* m
20 matches
Mail list logo
