https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sh*-*-* |
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #7)
> Not sure if it's the same bug or not, but I get the same error building GHC
"unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS'"
... kind of errors are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Nov 3 12:09:26 2019
New Revision: 277752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgcc/
PR libgcc/78804
* fp-bit.h: Remove FLOAT_BIT_ORDER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83464
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Is this still an issue with current trunk?
Can you please check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83464
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #4)
>
> I have to try. I'll run a testbuild. Currently the package has the following
> workaround for PR/81426:
>
> # See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the following on RX with -O2
[[gnu::noinline]]
int test_1 (int x)
{
return x + 1;
}
[[gnu::noinline]]
int test_2 (int x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83832
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
Another bit test case I ran into (on GCC 8) is something like
unsigned int bleh = (i & 4) == 0 ? 0 : 3;
An optimized result would be something like
tst #4,r1
stz #0,r14
stnz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83832
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
bset, bclr, bnot insns can be utiized with inline asm:
asm volatile ("bclr %1,%0.B"
: "+Q" (*(volatile unsigned char*)byte_addr) : "ir" (bitnum) :
"memory");
When the bitnum is not a constan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #27)
> We've hit what seems like almost the exact same issue on gcc 8.3.0 with this
> minimized testcase:
>
> void fg(int *);
> int get_response(int a)
> {
> int b;
> i
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The bit manipulation of bit 7 in a byte variable doesn't get fused into a
single instruction.
void bleh_0 (uint8_t* x, uint8_t* y, ui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
>
> Printing the assembly with GDB shows that the IP seems to be pointing at
> data instead of code(?):
>
> (gdb) x/5i $pc
> => 0x5380c0 : .word 0x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #3)
>
> I have put the compiled source into a tarball so you can have a look
> yourself:
>
> > https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz/ruby2.5-G7ZWPI.tgz
Sorry,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Thanks, that's good. I can look at the disassembly of string.o and found the
spot.
I suspect the switch statements in the code are turned into jump tables, and
for some reason the jump offset is wrong in some c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
I've just tried to compile the preprocessed string.i with the current gcc 9
branch sh-elf cross compiler with the following options:
sh-elf-gcc -c -mieee -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
-Werror=format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 47879
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47879&action=edit
reduced case
I've reduced the preprocessed file string.c down to the problematic function
'coderange_scan'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo ---
This seems to be actually valid code?!
switch (e - p)
{
default: __builtin_unreachable();
case 3: if (e[-3]&0x80) return e-3;
case 2: if (e[-2]&0x80) return e-2;
case 1: if (e[-1]&0x80) retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17)
> In the original code we have:
> if ((uintptr_t)p % 4) {
> int l = 4 - (uintptr_t)p % 4;
> p += l;
> switch (l) {
>
> l range should be 0...3
Ha!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> t = (const uintptr_t *)(e - (4 -1));
>
> is problemantic though. e is not known to be aligned to uintptr_t.
That's right. But it makes me wonder, why this h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91913
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #6)
> I'm seeing this exact problem SH as well when trying to build webkit2gtk:
>
> internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2211
>
> Sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #21)
>
> I think it is more by accident.strict-alginment here should not make a
> difference really as it is undefined even on non-strict targets.
> fcross-jumping i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #22)
>
> I see at least one encoder function that
... does not check that p is >= e and blindly starts reading data at p. ... so
I'd like to try to narrow it down a bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93876
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
the error message is
unable to find a register to spill in class 'R0_REGS'
please try to re-build with -mlra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93876
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
If -mlra helps with this case, then let's close this one as 'WON'T FIX', ok?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93876
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #119 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #118)
> Is there anything that currently speaks against switching to LRA by default
> now?
There were a couple of code quality issues, which I would need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
> Hmm, there is one other source code file within webkit2gtk where
> -fno-move-loop-invariants does not help. I can only get that particular
> source file t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #121 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #120)
>
> That's a huge task which is why I prefer fixing issues on the fly.
I thought this is almost fully automated?
You can apply this patch to GCC to e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
Adrian, have you had a chance to apply the test patch in comment #22 and re-run
it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #125 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #122)
>
> The build process is. Fixing broken packages isn't.
>
> Everything is around 13.000 source packages.
>
> And, finally, the buildd capacity is lim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
I can't reproduce the first case with a standalone sh-elf compiler (GCC 9).
The compile flags mention
-specs=/usr/share/dpkg/pie-compile.specs
... what's in that specs file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-04
22:41:47 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Feb 4 22:41:44 2013
New Revision: 195742
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195742
Log:
PR tree-optimization/54386
* gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55146
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-04 22:43:50
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Feb 4 22:43:47 2013
New Revision: 195743
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195743
Log:
PR target/55146
* gcc.target/sh/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-15 21:28:32
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Feb 15 21:28:26 2013
New Revision: 196092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196092
Log:
PR target/54685
* gcc.target/sh/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-15 21:33:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > FAIL: gcc.target/sh/pr54685.c scan-assembler-not not
> >
> > I'm curious why this fails. On my sh-elf / newlib config it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-16
11:36:37 UTC ---
Another case taken from CSiBE / bzip2, where reusing the intermediate shift
result would be better:
void uInt64_from_UInt32s ( UInt64* n, UInt32 lo32, UInt32 hi32 )
{
n->b[7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54673
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-17 11:38:21
UTC ---
A related reduced example from CSiBE bzip2.c (compressStream):
typedef struct
{
int _r[3];
short _flags;
} FILE;
void BZ2_bzWriteOpen (int* e, FILE* f, int a, int b,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
Bug #: 56365
Summary: Missed opportunities for smin/smax standard name
patterns
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56369
Bug #: 56369
Summary: Missed opportunity to combine comparisons with zero
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56365
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-18 20:04:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I see, at -O2, on x86_64 in 070t.phiopt:
>
> test_04 (int a, int b)
> {
> int D.1744;
> int D.1741;
> int _3;
> int _4;
>
> :
> _3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56508
Bug #: 56508
Summary: [SH] Add support for rtv/n instruction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
||2013-03-02
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-02 16:16:41
UTC ---
Created attachment 29567
--> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55303
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-02 16:23:57
UTC ---
For non-SH2A targets there is an opportunity to generate better insn sequences
for the special case
unsigned int test (unsigned int a)
{
return a > 1 ? 1 : a;
}
on SH2A:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-04 21:50:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> +1
>
> I'm seeing the same pattern.
> Infact, I'm noticing a lot of my maths code seems to be performing a lot of
> redundant moves.
Some examples
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56529
Bug #: 56529
Summary: [SH] Calls to __sdivsi3_i4i and __udivsi3_i4i are
generated on SH2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56529
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-04 23:44:09
UTC ---
Created attachment 29581
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29581
A possible patch
This patch seems to fix the problem, although tested only with 'make all-gcc'.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-05 12:28:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> Why is a new ABI important?
>
Because currently, there is no way to pass something like
struct { float x, y, z, w };
as function arguments i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56529
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-06 00:41:33
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Mar 6 00:41:25 2013
New Revision: 196484
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196484
Log:
PR target/56529
* config/sh/sh.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-06
00:54:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I've tried current 4.6/4.7/4.8 with --enable-checking=df on sh4-linux
> and found that the ice has gone for both original and reduced test cases.
> I'd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547
Bug #: 56547
Summary: [SH] missed opportunity for fmac with -ffast-math
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-06 01:05:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> >
> > I'm also noticing that -ffast-math is inhibiting fmac emission in some
> > cases:
> >
> > Compiled with: -O3 -mfused-madd -ffast-math
> >
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56529
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-06 22:54:18
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Mar 6 22:54:11 2013
New Revision: 196510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196510
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-03-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56529
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55146
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-09 13:00:33
UTC ---
Kaz, do you have any suggestion what to do with this issue on < 4.8 ?
Although I haven't looked deeper into the problem, I'm afraid the actual bug is
not in the sh-target but somewh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51708
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-09 14:43:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> In order to 'force' the constant load to be CSE-ed the constant load and
> dynamic shift patterns have to be emitted in the respective expanders, so that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56508
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-10 12:08:24
UTC ---
I've only looked briefly how this could be implemented.
As far as I can see, there are two basic cases:
1)
int test0 (int a, int b)
{
return a;
}
currently compiles to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56590
Bug #: 56590
Summary: Replace auto-inc-dec pass with generic address mode
selection pass
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-10 19:53:56
UTC ---
Some related notes:
According to the public documentation, the 'fschg' insn is only valid when
FPSCR.PR = 0 on all FPU enabled cores (SH2A, SH4, SH4A).
On SH4 and SH4A the 'frc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56592
Bug #: 56592
Summary: [SH] Add vector ABI
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-11
01:04:17 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Mar 11 01:04:13 2013
New Revision: 196590
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196590
Log:
PR target/40797
* gcc.c-torture
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-11 19:56:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> ideally, this would be something like (no insn scheduling applied):
>
> fmov.s @r4+,fr0
> fmov.s @r4+,fr1
> fmov.s @r4+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-13 18:09:16
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Mar 13 18:09:10 2013
New Revision: 196636
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196636
Log:
PR target/49880
* config/sh/sh.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55295
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-13 18:21:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> This is another reason for adding a new ABI, BTW.
Just for the record, I've opened a new PR 56592 for this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56592
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-17 14:19:55
UTC ---
Regarding multi-word arguments:
> 'double' values are passed in DR registers, where the high 32 bits are passed
> in FR(n*2) and the low 32 bits in FR(n*2+1) regardless of the end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-25 23:02:04
UTC ---
Although it doesn't show up here, I've also backported the fix to the 4.7
branch and committed it as rev. 197071.
OK to close this PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo 2013-05-04 13:39:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> - Loops with multiple running sums like
> for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
> {
> sum0 += (int64_t)(*a++) * (int64_t)(*b++);
> sum1 += (int64_t)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57177
Bug #: 57177
Summary: [SH] Improve integer division
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55303
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2013-05-06 05:48:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I will modify the attached patch so that it will allow only the HW clip
> constants for now.
This has been committed as rev 198617:
http://gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2013-05-06 20:10:11
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=198646
PR target/52933
* config/sh/sh.md (*cmp_div0s_0, *cmp_div0s_1, *movsicc_div0s): Add
variations of these pattern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56451
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09
15:51:25 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:51:20 2012
New Revision: 190257
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190257
Log:
PR target/50751
* config/sh/sh.md (*extendq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #46 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09
15:55:23 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:55:18 2012
New Revision: 190258
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190258
Log:
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh.md: Add negc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09
15:58:08 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:58:04 2012
New Revision: 190259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190259
Log:
PR target/39423
* config/sh/predicates.md (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:17:54
UTC ---
OK, I checking out the preprocessed file reveals the following relevant pieces:
typedef struct page {
struct list_head list;
struct address_space *mapping;
unsigned long index;
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:27:55
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 23:27:51 2012
New Revision: 190273
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190273
Log:
PR target/54089
* config/sh/sh-protos (shift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:36:10
UTC ---
Kaz, another thing I'm a bit unsure about ...
#define SH_DYNAMIC_SHIFT_COST \
(TARGET_HARD_SH4 ? 1 : TARGET_DYNSHIFT ? (optimize_size ? 1 : 2) : 20)
Do you have any idea, why this is n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-09 23:42:57
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Kaz, another thing I'm a bit unsure about ...
>
> #define SH_DYNAMIC_SHIFT_COST \
> (TARGET_HARD_SH4 ? 1 : TARGET_DYNSHIFT ? (optimize_size ? 1 : 2) : 20)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #27 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-10
12:26:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
>
> I got an ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3654 when applying to
> the 4.7 branch, but it seems to be resolved on trunk (hoping it's not hidden
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-10
13:26:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
>
> This ICE does happen on trunk (rev190294). I have a testcase for it that I'm
> reducing. There was a second ICE introduced by 190259 as well.
>
> /home/ry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-10
15:40:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Created attachment 27985 [details]
> preprocessed src
>
> ./xgcc -B. -w ~/ice2.i -c -Os
> /home/ryan/ice2.i: In function 'tg_extent':
> /home/ryan/ice2.i:81
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-11
20:25:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > #define SH_DYNAMIC_SHIFT_COST (TARGET_DYNSHIFT ? 1 : 20)
>
> Sounds reasonable. Perhaps some historical reason for the original
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #31 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-12
13:23:24 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Aug 12 13:23:20 2012
New Revision: 190326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190326
Log:
PR target/39423
* config/sh/predicates.md (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236
Bug #: 54236
Summary: [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #47 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-12
22:47:21 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Aug 12 22:47:15 2012
New Revision: 190331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190331
Log:
PR target/51244
* config/sh/sh.md: Add spli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50751
--- Comment #31 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-14
17:54:35 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Aug 14 17:54:28 2012
New Revision: 190395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190395
Log:
PR target/50751
* config/sh/constraints.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-14 17:59:11
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Aug 14 17:59:03 2012
New Revision: 190396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190396
Log:
PR target/52933
* config/sh/sh.md (cmp_div0s
||2012-08-15
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
1 - 100 of 1963 matches
Mail list logo
