https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk (I forgot the marker in the checkin comment, oops):
rs6000: Enforce quad_address_p in TImode atomic_load/store (PR80382)
Whatever expand expands to should be valid instructions. The de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The pressure becomes quite negative here... that isn't supposed to
happen as far as I can see. Allowing all negative pressures in the
asserts makes everything compile fine, but there really shouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes exactly. When pressure is removed the reg is on the reg_use_list
eight times, but when pressure was added it was just once.
||2017-04-14
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's a problem i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I like that last patch. Pre-approved if it works :-)
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Oct 3 16:02:38 2017
New Revision: 253384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
simplify-rtx: Remove non-simplifying simplification (PR77729)
If w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Powerpc*-*-*|powerpc*-*-*
--- Comment #4 from Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The new testcase gcc.dg/ cold-1.c fails:
FAIL: gcc.dg/cold-1.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cold-1.c:10:5: warning: implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Bill, do you want to backport that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73650
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42390
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42390&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2017-10/msg000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 42391
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42391&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> I'm still not convinced this is a bug. For example, all kernel code
> uses `asm volatile ("" ::: "memory")` as barrier to stop GCC to reorder code
> through it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You cannot do that if you do not know what foo() does (it could for
example contain another volatile asm). But yes, the code as written
is not so great.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #10)
> Yes, and moreover foo() could access non-volatile memory.
> And only a memory clobber can prevent the compiler from
> using cached values.
But you *want*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Oct 18 21:08:18 2017
New Revision: 253869
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253869&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira: volatile asm's are not moveable (PR82602)
A volatile asm stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Oct 18 21:13:16 2017
New Revision: 253870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira: volatile asm's are not moveable (PR82602)
A volatile asm stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Oct 18 21:15:24 2017
New Revision: 253871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira: volatile asm's are not moveable (PR82602)
A volatile asm stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-10-20
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That's not valid code. See the last paragraph of
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.2.0/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Volatile :
Under ce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The combine output you showed is _not_ succeeding though? "matched"
just means the rtx was recog()'ed; not that it was actually replaced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
At the start of combine you have
insn_cost 4 for18: r91:DI=r83:DI<<0x2
REG_DEAD r83:DI
Is that death note not correct?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah. So we start with
insn_cost 4 for18: r91:DI=r83:DI<<0x2
REG_DEAD r83:DI
insn_cost 4 for19: r78:DI=r76:DI+r91:DI
REG_DEAD r91:DI
REG_DEAD r76:DI
insn_cost 20 for20: r82:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh, it does show the intermediate results:
Trying 18 -> 19:
Successfully matched this instruction:
(set (reg/f:DI 78 [ _7 ])
(plus:DI (ashift:DI (reg:DI 83 [ _26 ])
(const_int 2 [0x2]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, it requires to look back a bit (the info always is in this dump
file though!)
The alternative would be to dump even more info, grow the log files
by a factor two or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The "failed to match" messages are hugely important (in fact, I want it
to print more: _why_ did combination fail, in all the cases where it is
not because of recog).
The "deferring deletion" messages a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The combination 8 -> 9 (where the GE is introduced) does not call
SELECT_CC_MODE at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Maybe you can handle this in can_change_dest_mode? That will catch
the similar cases, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So should combine use targetm.cc_modes_compatible here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
But why only do this for FLOAT_MODE_P? Either the logic here isn't
correct, or cc_modes_compatible isn't the correct hook (we'll need
a new hook then?), or determining ordered/unordered by CC mode does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
My point is that doing this only for FLOAT_MODE_P makes no real sense.
If we can describe ordered comparisons with special CC modes, we should
do tests with those modes only here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So we have a compare:CCFPU, the resulting flags is used in a GE
only, and ix86_cc_mode thinks the best mode to use for that is CCFP.
Which is fine, except compare:CCFPU is a different instruction, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
reg-notes.def says
/* The value in REG dies in this insn (i.e., it is not needed past
this insn). If REG is set in this insn, the REG_DEAD note may,
but need not, be omitted. */
REG_NOTE (DEAD)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah. The only problem is 64kB is actually an interesting case to
support, since that is the page size on modern systems :-(
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a simpler patch. It is testing...
redhat dot com |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch; regchecking now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Oct 31 09:49:40 2017
New Revision: 254252
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix crash with big stack clash interval (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69737
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Nov 1 16:40:42 2017
New Revision: 254315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix bug in giving up placing REG_DEAD notes (PR82683)
When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Nov 1 16:40:42 2017
New Revision: 254315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix bug in giving up placing REG_DEAD notes (PR82683)
Whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64682
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Nov 1 16:40:42 2017
New Revision: 254315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix bug in giving up placing REG_DEAD notes (PR82683)
Whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69567
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Nov 1 16:40:42 2017
New Revision: 254315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix bug in giving up placing REG_DEAD notes (PR82683)
Whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Should be fixed on trunk now. Steve, could you see if it fixes the
SPEC problem for you?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is there anything left to do here? Or can this PR be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Excellent, thanks for testing! I'll backport it next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
--- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We currently generate
fun:
lwz 8,0(3)
rlwimi 8,4,12,0,31-12
rlwinm 10,8,24,24,31
stw 8,0(3)
rlwinm 10,10,0,30,27
ori 10,10,0x8
stb 10,2(3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82848
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77850
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77850
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69737
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:21:06 2017
New Revision: 254564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:21:06 2017
New Revision: 254564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69567
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:21:06 2017
New Revision: 254564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64682
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:21:06 2017
New Revision: 254564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69567
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:23:30 2017
New Revision: 254565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64682
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:23:30 2017
New Revision: 254565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:23:30 2017
New Revision: 254565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69737
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 9 10:23:30 2017
New Revision: 254565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-01 Segher Boessenkoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-11-17
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
On trunk it does (with -m32 -O2):
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82940
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
In combine, we start with
insn_cost 4 for10: r137:SI=r136:QI#0&0x7f
REG_DEAD r136:QI
insn_cost 4 for13: r140:SI=r132:SI&0xff80
REG_DEAD r132:SI
insn_cost 4 for16: r1
||2017-11-17
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is fixed.
||2017-11-17
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Trying 77 -> 90:
77: {r196:SI=0-r188:SI;ca:SI=leu(r188:SI,0);}
REG_UNUSED ca:SI
90: {r197:SI=r196:SI+r196:SI+ca:SI;clobber ca:SI;}
REG_DEAD r196:SI
REG_DEAD ca:SI
REG_UNUSED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Lack of coffee: the CA feeding into insn 90 is from insn 89, not from 77.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Nov 17 14:46:04 2017
New Revision: 254874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Don't split insns if half is unused (PR82621)
If we have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk, backports pending.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61729
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37262
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is fixed on trunk. I'll bisect it to see if it is worth backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37262
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81362
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81315
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81291
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk. This may be the same as PR82621, which I'll backport this
week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 20 20:10:28 2017
New Revision: 254968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Don't touch below the stack pointer (PR77687)
With the 32-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68690
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70134
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
PowerPC has no simple way to set a CR field to "equal". We could add
a pattern to do that (which will cost 2 insns, so works for 3->2
combinations, like we in fact get here; something like li X,0 ; cmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81315
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This was BE, on a compiler that defaults to power4 ("970 without altivec").
I.e. the default for powerpc64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Trunk does (both -m32 and -m64)
srawi 9,4,5
addze 9,9
slwi 9,9,5
subf 4,9,4
srw 3,3,4
and
rlwinm 4,4,0,27,31
srw 3,3,4
so the original problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67530
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83084
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is this because the var_location contains an unspec_volatile? Is that a
target bug, then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18154
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Trunk now generates isel for power9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82190
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
In the first case (with the extend to SImode) the extend is combined
with the AND, to an AND in SImode. After that, the 3-insn combination
of the two shifts with the AND is something combine knows how t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81291
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 81291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Nov 24 17:00:57 2017
New Revision: 255142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255142&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Don't split insns if half is unused (PR82621)
If we have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Nov 24 17:03:04 2017
New Revision: 255143
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255143&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Don't split insns if half is unused (PR82621)
If we have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83143
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83150
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Ben Longbons from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > Plugins are not well defined in GCC.
>
> That excuse is getting *really* old.
No matter how often you hear
||2017-11-25
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, I see what is happening -- there are REG_UNUSED notes here that do
not refer to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83156
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hrm, looking for a REG_UNUSED of the dests (instead of of anything)
fixes f1 and f2, but not the rest.
1801 - 1900 of 3230 matches
Mail list logo
