https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83143
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What flags does it need? I can't get it to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83143
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes I use sh4-linux, but trunk (not 7). Will try 7 later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Nov 28 01:28:57 2017
New Revision: 255188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Improve comparison rtx_cost (PR81288)
The current rs6000 rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Nov 29 22:42:37 2017
New Revision: 255260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Do not throw away unneeded arms of parallels (PR83156)
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83156
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Nov 29 22:42:37 2017
New Revision: 255260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Do not throw away unneeded arms of parallels (PR83156)
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83156
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Dec 1 20:35:52 2017
New Revision: 255337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Improve comparison rtx_cost (PR81288)
The current rs6000 rt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81288
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Dec 1 20:37:33 2017
New Revision: 255338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Improve comparison rtx_cost (PR81288)
The current rs6000 rt
gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed for powerpc on all open branches. Still needs to be handled for
powerpcspe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43871
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Sat Dec 2 01:23:41 2017
New Revision: 255349
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255349&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Set rs6000_cpu correctly (PR43871)
We set rs6000_cpu based
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83245
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2017-12-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43871
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Dec 4 09:19:27 2017
New Revision: 255376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/83265
Revert
2017-12-01 Seghe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83265
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Dec 4 09:19:27 2017
New Revision: 255376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/83265
Revert
2017-12-01 Seghe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83265
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83245
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Dec 4 09:30:37 2017
New Revision: 255377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255377&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
lra: Clobbers in a parallel are earlyclobbers (PR83245)
The documen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83245
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please show output and output from before it failed. And/or some
analysis that shows why current is wrong. Etc. Or even better,
make a patch to fix the testcase ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah. It seems to be because the testcases test for /5, /4 etc., which is
now printed as /4 resp. /3, because alternatives start counting at 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
?
Why me? What do I have to do with this? It's SH code, I'm not
an SH maintainer. /confused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I do not see any differences in generated asm code between before r255384
and trunk. Some other options are needed as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Send it to gcc-patches@? If it is approved, I can commit it, sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With r255384 combine manages to do many more combinations. Without it, it
can get rid of most of the loop body (which should have been optimised
away in gimple already really).
I don't see how it would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
But losing a clobber like that is just fine (even losing a SET is fine, if
its dest is REG_UNUSED, and combine actually does that in certain cases).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43871
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Dec 7 09:36:28 2017
New Revision: 255464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255464&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Initialise rs6000_cpu correctly (PR43871)
Finally, set rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
At some point during combine we have
insn_cost 4 for72: r127:SI=0xff81
insn_cost 4 for 9: r130:SI=ctz(r125:SI)
insn_cost 4 for69: cc:CC=cmp(r125:SI,0)
insn_cost 4 for70: r131
||2017-12-08
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Dec 8 11:26:35 2017
New Revision: 255506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Fix PR83304
In PR83304 two insns are combined, where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77499
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #0)
> PS: I am not sure I completely understand the way the last_set_value stuff
> works for pseudo's in combine, but it looks to me like each instruction is
> visited i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77499
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #9)
> > > So I dont know... Only thing I can think of is better "value-range"-like
> > > analysis for combine, but that might be too costly?
That is what nonzero_bits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77613
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77676
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Could this be reverted for now please, until the bootstrap errors are fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71109
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71109
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It doesn't fail for me, 6.2.1 20160921 nor 7.0.0 20160914 (experimental).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The testcase also fails for -m64 for me (on BE). I have -m64 explicitly
in the RUNTESTFLAGS. The testcase has
/* { dg-skip-if "do not override -mcpu" { powerpc64*-*-* } { "-mcpu=*" } {
"-mcpu=power7"
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following code:
===
void g(void);
void f(long a, long b, long c, long d, int x)
{
int t;
if (x)
t = a <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77820
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Note that combine cannot optimise the
csetw0, lt
cbnzw0, .L6
to
blt .L6
because the two insns are in different BBs still. The final branch
isn't duplicated until
Assignee: ian at airs dot com
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: cmang at google dot com
Target Milestone: ---
r240657 breaks bootstrap on powerpc64-linux and powerpc64le-linux:
...
echo timestamp > s-runtime-inc
/home/segher/build/tot/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/seg
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Executing on host: /home/segher/build/tot-master/gcc/xgcc
-B/home/segher/build/tot-master/gcc/
/home/segher/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-35.c
-fno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77843
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is trying to do a signed conversion from TImode to float here, to be
stored in BLKmode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, combine should avoid forming patterns that can never match. It already
does that in many cases. Where does it form this one?
And yes, the target should not allow patterns it has no instruction f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77843
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
No, my latest tree was at 240740. I didn't find a PR, was there one?
Testing with current trunk now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77881
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
That looks good, please submit to gcc-patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's on my radar. All bugs can be fixed during stage3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77962
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77962
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Oct 13 18:25:15 2016
New Revision: 241135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241135&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Create the *logue in the same order as before (PR77962)
PR77962 sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77843
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed with r241056, I wasn't aware there was a BZ, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71629
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Is this the same bug at all? If not, please open a new PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71629
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #8)
> Well, snippets from #c0 and #c2 still make the latest snapshot ICE:
Hrm, in comment 5 it all worked for me. I'll test again.
> And I still can't bootstra
||2016-10-18
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Mine. Something with shrink-wrap-separate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Eric,
What bootstrap stage is failing here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Also, what configure comment, and you seem to have CFLAGS set during
build?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Build, with what flags?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Kyrill: Anything inconsistent in the CFI will trigger the assert there,
it is most probably not the same bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So it seems rs6000_overloaded_builtin_p doesn't return true for
some builtin where it should? Kelvin?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It builds fine for me on gcc110. Markus, what are you doing differently?
I use recent binutils, maybe that is it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I used the following patch yesterday, and it works. Totally
hacky of course, it should be factored to its own function, etc.
===
diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78095
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So why does valgrind try to clobber r2? That just isn't going to work...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 39887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39887&action=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 39888
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39888&action=edit
split4 dump (right before sched2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 39889
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39889&action=edit
pro_and_epilogue dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Oct 28 14:39:28 2016
New Revision: 241650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sched: Do not mix prologue and epilogue insns
This patch makes sche
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71847
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Oct 28 20:56:28 2016
New Revision: 241664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Improve change_zero_ext (fixes PR71847)
This improves a fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78168
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Cannot reproduce on 32-bit Linux, will try a plain powerpc-elf build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78168
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, that might be the difference. My powerpc-elf build worked just fine;
trying to build powerpc-rtems4.12 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78168
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Doesn't fail with powerpc-rtems4.12 either. Are you sure you built trunk?
A clean build?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78168
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Nov 2 17:06:04 2016
New Revision: 241799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241799&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Disable shrink-wrap-separate for abi=spe (PR78168)
With th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78186
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78186
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 3 16:04:22 2016
New Revision: 241824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine lhs zero_extract fix (PR78186)
PR rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78186
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is on my "stage3" list.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ah, so combine isn't really doing anything wrong here -- for the "plain"
shift it already only refuses it because the target does not allow it.
Some targets *do* allow shifting by amounts more than a re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi, could you try https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00775.html ?
And sorry for the breakage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78232
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 10 22:45:39 2016
New Revision: 242059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242059&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
combine: Do not call simplify from inside change_zero_ext (PR78232)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78232
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Sat Nov 12 15:13:14 2016
New Revision: 242336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Don't forget to initialize the TOC (PR77957)
The code gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77957
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] Undefined |[5/6 Regression] Undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Nov 18 09:14:52 2016
New Revision: 242584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
bb-reorder: Improve compgotos pass (PR71785)
For code like the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Combine should probably not try to generate this extract, I wonder if it
can exist on any target. So where is it coming from?
Of course the target should not "successfully" match it ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78400
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78400
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 21 14:44:21 2016
New Revision: 242663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
shrink-wrap: Fix problem with DF checking (PR78400)
With my previou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 21 15:15:21 2016
New Revision: 242665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242665&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Testcase for PR71785
gcc/testsuite/
PR rtl-optimization/71
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68803
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 21 22:29:34 2016
New Revision: 242681
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242681&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: rl[wd]imi without shift/rotate (PR68803)
We didn't have pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78438
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why is this wrong? This isn't the same reg 94 (it is reused):
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (mem/c:QI (symbol_ref:DI ("a") [flags 0x2] )
[0 a+0 S1 A8])
(subreg:QI (ashiftrt:SI (reg:SI 93
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78438
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
n/m, too tired I guess, please ignore comment 5.
||2015-03-14
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|inefficient code returning |inefficient
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Aldy,
If the only thing failing is -m32 -mpowerpc64, that is likely another
problem. Not likely a regression either (but I don't have testresults
around going back more than a year or so; it failed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@linux-mips.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62028
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I see GCC not trying to throw away the useless arm of the parallel,
just as comment 7 mentions. I wonder why that is, investigating.
This isn't the root cause; it is just exposing a problem in the RA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Apr 8 22:52:24 2015
New Revision: 221937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/65693
* combine.c (is_parallel_of_n_reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Apr 9 14:37:14 2015
New Revision: 221951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/65693
* combine.c (is_parallel_of_n_reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42172
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I sent a patch for the combine issue,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00359.html .
||2015-04-12
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. If not using an asm but, say, a simple assignment,
cddce1 gets rid of the loop.
Moving
1901 - 2000 of 3229 matches
Mail list logo
