https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Oct 19 13:35:14 2016
New Revision: 241342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-19 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77916
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71915
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71915
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Something is causing us to hate the second case now, assigning "infinite" cost
to it:
Processing dependency tree rooted at 5.
Using existing initializer: _3 = -_2;
Increment vector:
0 increment: -8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71915
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
This is an example of a known limitation in SLSR. The explanation is in
analyze_increments:
/* FORNOW: If we need to add an initializer, give up if a cast from
the candidate's type to i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed in trunk. Planning to backport to 5 and 6 in a couple of days after
burn-in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78084
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 24 02:36:40 2016
New Revision: 241461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-23 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 24 02:41:12 2016
New Revision: 241462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241462&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-23 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77934
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78084
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
For the record, this was fixed a couple of months ago under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72863. I'll give Canonical a
heads-up to be sure they pick up the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78095
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> At least it needs a big fat explanation in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html
I tend to think this is the right action. It has never been a good idea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78095
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Done. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01983.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72747
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71915
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 31 03:04:59 2016
New Revision: 241695
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241695&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-30 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/71915
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71490
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 31 03:04:59 2016
New Revision: 241695
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241695&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-30 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/71915
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71915
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71490
Bug 71490 depends on bug 71915, which changed state.
Bug 71915 Summary: A missed opportunity for SLSR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71915
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71490
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Just got back to looking at this. I've implemented this suggestion and it
seems to work well for the most part; it solves the poor code generation we
were seeing on this test case, and most of the test suite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, never mind, I see what's happening.
The order of events is
* if-conversion
* loop vectorization
* DCE
* cunroll
* slp vectorization
If we force versioning on with if-conversion, then the loop vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
I suppose that's not sensible as stated, as the SLP vectorizer doesn't really
think in terms of loops.
But this is an existing problem independent of whether we force loop-versioning
on in all cases. Right n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I will try to get some machine time to do performance testing of the
existing patch as soon as possible.
Here is the list of failures:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-cond-1.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects
> scan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
FYI, the patch I am testing is:
Index: gcc/tree-if-conv.c
===
--- gcc/tree-if-conv.c (revision 241802)
+++ gcc/tree-if-conv.c (working copy)
@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
> >
> > --- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
So I'll now test
Index: gcc/tree-if-conv.c
===
--- gcc/tree-if-conv.c (revision 241802)
+++ gcc/tree-if-conv.c (working copy)
@@ -2767,7 +276
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78210
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78210
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Nov 4 15:21:38 2016
New Revision: 241845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-04 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/78210
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78210
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Should be fixed now. Please confirm and I will backport. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78210
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
SPEC cpu2006 on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with the simple patch:
Geomean, integer: +0.2%
Geomean, float:+0.5%
Geomean, overall: +0.4%
Notable improvements:
454.calculix:+3.7%
453.povray:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #14)
> On November 5, 2016 4:31:54 PM GMT+01:00, "wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
>
> >Notable degradations:
> > 403.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 39975
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39975&action=edit
WIP patch for outer-loop vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Oh, I see. Makes sense. I'll look into it soonish after handling a
high-priority interrupt that came in over the weekend...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
You simply need to use -std=gnu++11 instead of -std=c++11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
From the GCC User's Manual (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc.pdf):
By default, GCC also provides some additional extensions to the C++ language
that on rare occasions conflict with the C++ standard. See Sec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
I have a patch that solves this problem by always versioning loops when
vectorization is enabled, and also sets up if-conversion for outer loops so
that outer-loop vectorization can succeed as before. Surpri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #21 from Bill Schmidt ---
Great, thanks. Just realized I need to add a test case yet -- should have this
on the list later today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt ---
Proposed patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01541.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Nov 16 22:17:10 2016
New Revision: 242520
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-16 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77848
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt ---
The above commit doesn't yet solve the problem, but enables more outer-loop
vectorization in preparation for the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g |powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Nov 17 14:22:17 2016
New Revision: 242550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-11-17 Bill Schmidt
Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848 identified a case where
if-conversion modified a loop that was not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #27 from Bill Schmidt ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396 is open to track that
failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch submitted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01951.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
The ??? comments worry me -- can't this leave us with the same kinds of
regressions that led to PR77848? I think the specific test in that PR may
regress again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Nov 21 14:10:11 2016
New Revision: 242661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-11-21 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/78413
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I'll test it out shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78413
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
gfortran.dg/vect/pr77848.f indeed still passes with this change.
I suppose that similar code where something else in the block could be
vectorized would still regress, though. I don't think that's sufficient
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ok, will have a look today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
The logic for placement of initializers for PHI candidates is a bit wrong.
They should be placed at the end of the feeding block for the PHI. Currently
they can end up being placed too early, as in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 2 22:07:30 2014
New Revision: 209040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209040&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-02 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/60733
* gi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:05:08 2014
New Revision: 209095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r201750.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56843
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:29:23 2014
New Revision: 209104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2013-04-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:32:32 2014
New Revision: 209105
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209105&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from mainline
2014-01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59909
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:42:18 2014
New Revision: 209107
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60137
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:02:38 2014
New Revision: 209111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r207699.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:02:38 2014
New Revision: 209111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r207699.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58675
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:05:34 2014
New Revision: 209112
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Apply mainline r207798
2014-02-26 Ala
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57935
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:05:34 2014
New Revision: 209112
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Apply mainline r207798
2014-02-26 Ala
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57052
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:10:24 2014
New Revision: 209114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from trunk
2013-04-25 Alan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:10:24 2014
New Revision: 209114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from trunk
2013-04-25 Alan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:14:01 2014
New Revision: 209116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209116&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port mainline subversion id 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57589
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 9 19:42:14 2014
New Revision: 209250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-09 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r202642
2013-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Per discussion on IRC, we are going to revert this patch on 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10.
This will mean that PR60735 will have to be reopened for a better fix. The
patch seems to leave things in a worse state than pre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:20:01 2014
New Revision: 209425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert following patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:25:09 2014
New Revision: 209426
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:25:09 2014
New Revision: 209426
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:20:01 2014
New Revision: 209425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert following patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:30:21 2014
New Revision: 209430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:30:21 2014
New Revision: 209430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sebastian, sorry for the problems. Please double check that reverting this
patch has fixed your bootstrap issue and mark the bug resolved if so. Thanks!
gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Also reproduces on powerpc64le-linux-gnu for 4.10. I'll investigate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32664
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32664&action=edit
Proposed patch
Here's a patch (for trunk) that solves the problem for powerpc64le without
regression. If you have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Perhaps I confused matters a little with the commentary. What's happening with
the bug is that the multiplication succeeds in the double-int but the product
is then truncated to the size of the stride type on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hi Richi,
What you suggest won't quite work, as the ctype just represents the type of the
base expression and not necessarily the type of the result. (We're doing a
pure-forward analysis and don't know how th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32664|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Er, guess there was no SLSR in 4.7, so if this test is failing on 4.7 that must
be something else. I will assume that's a typo, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 25 14:28:58 2014
New Revision: 209805
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-25 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/60930
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
I will let the trunk fix burn in for a week before patching 4.8 and 4.9.
Note that this patch will NOT fix whatever is wrong with this test case on
4.7.3 for i686. I suggest that you open a separate bug repo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 2 21:49:26 2014
New Revision: 210020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-05-02 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/60930
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 2 21:51:09 2014
New Revision: 210021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-05-02 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/60930
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
A test case (gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c) was added in 4.9 that exposes a bug
on PowerPC little endian for extracting an element from a V4SF value
||nu
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
Build||powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
||nu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
The bug exists in 4.8 as well, but was not caught with existing tests (we do
have a test that performs vec_extract on V4SF, but unfortunately only tested
element 3).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1101 - 1200 of 1697 matches
Mail list logo
