e way to go.
--
Summary: Post Increment opportunity missed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-03-17
14:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=13218)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13218&action=view)
Source that exposes the mentioned deficiency in the compiler
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
--- Comment #8 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-08-24
13:28 ---
Created an attachment (id=14102)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14102&action=view)
Another testcase displaying the said behaviour
IMHO, the code generated for the following can
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: arm-none-eabi
http
--- Comment #1 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-09-05
19:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=14158)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14158&action=view)
Sample Testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315
--- Comment #7 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-10-17
10:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=14362)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14362&action=view)
Reduced Testcase. Small Code, huge datastructure.
In the attached testcase due to an
--- Comment #8 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-10-17
10:50 ---
Adding Andrew here.
--
pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: arm-none-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32283
--- Comment #1 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-11
13:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=13676)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13676&action=view)
Testcase displaying the said behaviour
Added testcase that exposes the problem
--
--- Comment #3 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-11
14:33 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What if you remove the pointless 'volatile' from a?
>
No, removing the 'volatile' doesnt help either. The 'volatile' was because this
is
:
if (b3 == 0) goto L1 else goto L4
L4:
if (b4 == 0) goto L1 else goto L5
L5:
if (b5 == 0) goto L1 else goto L6
L6:
if (b6 == 0) goto L1 else goto L7
L7:
if (b7 == 0) goto L1 else goto L8
L8:
if (b8 == 0) goto L1 else goto L9
L9:
if (b9 == 0) goto L1 else goto L10
L10:
if (b10 == 0) goto L1 else goto L11
L11:
if (b11 == 0) goto L1 else goto L12
L12:
if (b12 == 0) goto L1 else goto L13
L13:
array[i]=1 (for i from 0 to 10)
return
L1:
array[i]=0 (for i from 0 to 10)
return
This is exactly what 4.1 generates but 4.3 fails to combine the if sequences.
Version Details:
GNU C version 4.3.0 20070316 (experimental) (arm-none-eabi)
compiled by GNU C version 3.4.6 (Ubuntu 3.4.6-1ubuntu2).
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
--
Summary: Bad Code generation ( Tree optimization )
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: arm-none-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
--- Comment #1 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-12
14:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=13686)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13686&action=view)
Tes
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
--- Comment #2 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-12
14:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=13687)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13687&action=view)
Code Generated by 4.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
--- Comment #3 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-12
14:50 ---
Created an attachment (id=13688)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13688&action=view)
Code Generated by 4.3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
--- Comment #5 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-12
21:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=13694)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13694&action=view)
A smaller Testcase that displays the said behaviour
Reduced the testcase. Reducing to less
--- Comment #6 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-12
21:14 ---
dom, in 4.1 is able to combine the if conditions unlike 4.3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
--- Comment #5 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-13
12:36 ---
Which RTL pass should take care of such induction variable optimization in 4.3
? For e.g In 4.1, It was old-loop that was doing it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32283
--- Comment #7 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-06-14
20:50 ---
I guess strength reduction should then be implemented at the RTL level ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32283
nassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: arm-none-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32716
--- Comment #1 from pranav dot bhandarkar at gmail dot com 2007-07-10
10:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=13876)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13876&action=view)
Dump of the early inline pass, that highlights the problem with the inliner
h() gets inlin
20 matches
Mail list logo
