https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109549
--- Comment #13 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
I will take it and I've already prepared a patch. Currently, I'm still testing
the patch. I hope I get enough compute resources in order to make it into GCC
14.
Anyhow, you can assign the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefansf at linux dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
For sparc we already see some sort of pre-optimization which "breaks" the new
test cases. For example, for test cmp-mem-const-1.c we have prior combine:
(insn 14 13 41 2 (set (reg:SI 117)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Thanks for testing so quickly :)
I've send a patch for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626075.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #7 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
I've send a patch for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626075.html
and thanks for testing :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #11 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
Created attachment 55686
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55686&action=edit
Increase optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #12 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
I have done a test with a cross-compiler and it looks to me as if we need -O2
instead of -O1 on Sparc in order to trigger the optimization. Can you give the
attached patch a try? Sorry for a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #14 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
For -3 and -4 I can confirm that we do not end up with a proper comparison
during combine which means we should just ignore these on Sparc.
I'm currently puzzled that -5 and -6 are actually p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #15 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
Created attachment 55688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55688&action=edit
Increase optimization and skip sparc for 4-6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #16 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
Turns out that my dejagnu foo is weak ;-) I came up with a wrong target
selector. Should be fixed in the new attachment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110869
--- Comment #18 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
Thanks again for testing. Very much appreciated!
I like the idea of a comment and posted a patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/626514.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #6 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
I tried to reproduce it with a cross compiler while using the reproducer from
PR110867 without getting an ICE. Can you attach a pre processed source file
and a corresponding gcc invocation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #9 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Thanks for the reproducer and sorry for the hassle.
The normal form of a constant for a mode with fewer bits than in HOST_WIDE_INT
is a sign extended version of the original constant. This e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #8 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
Created attachment 55716
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55716&action=edit
Really fix narrow comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110867
--- Comment #9 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
It looks like as if the first fix didn't entirely solve the problem. It turns
out that the normal form of const_int is not always met. Before releasing a
new patch, could you test it first i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110939
--- Comment #11 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/627024.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111462
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefansf at linux dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111462
--- Comment #6 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #4)
> > Since r14-4089-gd45ddc2c04e471 bootstrap fails on s390 with
> >
> > /devel/gcc/bui
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: stefansf at linux dot ibm.com
Target Milestone: ---
$ gfortran -c -o sgexx.fppized.o -I. -Iinclude -Inetcdf/include -O3 -std=legacy
-fconvert=big-endian sgexx.F90
during GIMPLE pass: dom
sgexx.F90:8996:23
101 - 119 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
