https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79397
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What command line options does this need? I get different assembly
(also with GCC 6), since GCC recognises that rec can never return:
.globl rec
.type rec, @function
rec:
.LCF1:
0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
-fpic does the trick. Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Patch withdrawn.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Feb 10 16:58:14 2017
New Revision: 245337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite, rs6000: Don't xfail 32-bit (PR66612)
-m32 works fine, o
||2017-02-11
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #30 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Trying to combine the load+add+store, combine is trying insns like
Failed to match this instruction:
(parallel [
(set (mem:SI (reg/v/f:SI 90 [ x ]) [1 *x_5(D)+0 S4 A32])
(plus:SI (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79460
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Shouldn't it (both in the vectorizer and in scev) be dependent not just on
> flag_fp_contract_mode but also on some -ffast-math subflag? Doing several
> ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79140
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79211
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Feb 22 23:50:46 2017
New Revision: 245667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix fsel pattern (PR79211)
The fsel define_insn uses fpr_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79211
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79150
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Well, does that "end with a non-branch" work? Not ICE that is; the
real problem will need to be dealt with as well, just probably not
in stage 4.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Closing then.
||2017-02-27
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
rs6000.h has
/* Byte/char syncs were added as phased in for ISA 2.06B, but are not present
in
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Works since (at least) 4.9; closing as fixed.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This was fixed in GCC 5 or GCC 6. So, closing this PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34903
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
lmw and stmw always restore/store r31, you cannot do multiple ranges.
lswi/stwsi could help. Also, the current rs6000 code does not use
lmw/stmw if that wouldn't cover all GPRs to restore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36770
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38939
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This now works fine with trunk on both powerpc and arm thumb, with
-O2 and -Os and with or without -fno-schedule-insns.
Closing as fixed; please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996
Bug 16996 depends on bug 40375, which changed state.
Bug 40375 Summary: redundant register move with scheduler before RA turned off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40375
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41742
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With current trunk the loop code is better (uses stbu), but the
unnecessary extend still is there:
memset:
cmpwi 0,5,0
beqlr 0
rlwinm 4,4,0,0xff
mtctr 5
addi 9,3,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
At least GCC 6 and later refuse this testcase:
36:7: error: 'virtual ICarousel::~ICarousel()' is private within this context
(but it accep
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Current trunk does (with -O2)
test:
mr. 10,3
lis 3,.LANCHOR0@ha
la 3,.LANCHOR0@l(3)
beqlr 0
.p2align 5,,31
.L3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43763
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Mar 3 17:00:50 2017
New Revision: 245880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245880&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix for -mwarn-cell-microcode (PR43763)
If using -mwarn-cel
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is a duplicate of 77687, which is fixed on trunk.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 77687 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54168
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm, powerpc*-*-* |arm
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56606
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on all open release branches, so let's close this now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61984
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79395
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79251
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Perhaps something like: (copy word 1 in vB to word rB in vT; BE)
sldi rB,rB,2
lvsl vP,0,rB
vperm vT,vT,vT,vP
xxinsertw vT,vB,0
lvsr vP,0,rB
vperm vT,vT,vT,vP
(i.e. rotate the dest vector so that the de
||2017-03-04
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, but how can we model this in GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79202
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Can't this just use a friz? If the cast to int wouldn't fit in
an int it is undefined behaviour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69143
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
||2017-03-07
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Still fails on trunk (needs -mno-lra there, on powerpc -- the bug is
(exposed) in reload).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59155
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 69034 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69034
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79845
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please try with a supported version of GCC; reopen this bug if the problem
still happens for you, then.
If you want to ask questions about ancient
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79484
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Mar 10 15:23:06 2017
New Revision: 246032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite: attr-alloc_size-11.c (PR79356)
As stated in the PR (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x-*-*, powerpc*-*-*,|s390x-*-*, powerpc*-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fails with -O2 -fselective-scheduling -mcpu=power8; also on BE, does not
fail with power7. Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68421
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This was a bug in glibc, see
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20004 , fixed at
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62233
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62147
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Still happens.
||2017-03-15
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. Still happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71294
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You need to build GCC with a new enough binutils, 2.24 I believe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33271
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Mar 15 20:48:49 2017
New Revision: 246174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246174&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Do not xfail nint_2.f90 on Linux systems
It was XFAILed be
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The testcase has undefined behaviour, of course.
We start with these insns, all in the same basic block, in this order:
B := A|Z(1)
A := B (2)
D := A (3)
First propagating (1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79910
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Mar 20 23:08:16 2017
New Revision: 246297
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246297&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix 79910
If the dest of an I0 or I1 is used in an insn be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80101
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80101
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
power6.md defines a bypass:
; define the bypass for the case where the value written
; by a fixed point op is used as the source value on a
; store.
(define_bypass 1 "power6-integer,\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80103
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80107
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80125
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 41010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41010&action=edit
another patch
I used this one instead. all_adjacent is a pretty useless optimisation here,
reg_used_betwe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80131
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80131
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, good point. Of course c is unsigned in the example, but we should
handle signed as well (and that info is lost in RTL anyway).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80102
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot get any of the testcases to fail with current trunk (but
they do fail with GCC 6). Combine always merges the compare into
the if_then_else pattern, and there are no such patterns in rs6000
(th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, not a bug.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Not a bug.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
At least as far back as 4.9, GCC does not touch the stack in the inner
loop (except for stfiwx insns). Closing as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43496
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Mar 28 22:26:17 2017
New Revision: 246555
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246555&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix gcc.target/powerpc/gcse-1.c for PIC (PR43496)
With PIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80233
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
How about this patch instead?
--- a/gcc/combine.c
+++ b/gcc/combine.c
@@ -1250,7 +1250,8 @@ combine_instructions (rtx_insn *f, unsigned int nregs)
continue;
while (last_combined_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80233
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #3
||2017-03-29
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It generates different code now, but still a LHS:
vxor 0,0,0
li 10,16
lis 9
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk, no backports planned, closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31557
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80233
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Mar 29 20:53:59 2017
New Revision: 246575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix PR80233
If combine has added an unconditional trap the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80108
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Kelvin,
405 does not have VSX (or even VMX). The instructions enabled by
-mpower9-minmax require VSX. The following behaviours all make
sense, for -mcpu=405 -mpower9-minmax:
1) Ignore the latter o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80233
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is it fixed? Can this not happen on GCC 6?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Okay, this I can reproduce (no -fPIC needed, not even -m32). Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80233
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah exactly... so I'm conflicted whether we need to backport this or not.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
At least as far back as 4.9 GCC does no longer generate subfic; is uses
a mix of cntlzw/srwi, addic/subfe, and cmpw insns. Using more than three
CR
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This has been fixed long ago.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Since at least 4.9 only two registers are stored on the frame, and
there is no frame at all for the early exits. I don't see any weird
specul
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I fixed this in r246206 (wasn't aware of this PR).
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This works fine on trunk. Closing this PR. If you want whatever fixed
it backported, please identify what change fixed it.
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is a duplicate of PR67288 (and many others).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 67288 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 80134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43496
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You don't even need -Os for this last testcase, only -misel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The combination that makes it die is:
Trying 18, 17 -> 19:
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg:CC 176)
(reg:CC 164))
Where insn 18 is
(set (reg:SI 174)
(gt:SI (reg:CC 164)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch for the problem in comments 17 and 19 (which is different from
the problems in earlier comments, only some of which i can reproduce).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Apr 4 00:10:02 2017
New Revision: 24
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=24&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
simplify-rtx: Fix compare of comparisons (PR60818)
The function si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. The define_expand condition is *not* checked?! Possibly by
the pow->sqrt code (yeah I'm guessing here).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80099
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
1701 - 1800 of 3229 matches
Mail list logo
