at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
I see failures on today's trunk with PGO/LTO bootstrap; however, they are a
little different now:
/home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test/./gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Backtrace from gdb:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x10cfcf74 in reg_save_code(int, machine_mode) [clone .lto_priv.8969]
()
(gdb) bt
#0 0x10cfcf74 in reg_save_code(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28366
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah yeah, why are we saving so many copies? That's just ridiculous. Well, we
should keep this around, then, and put it on the list...
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dje at gcc dot gnu.org, munroesj at us dot ibm.com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: powerpc64le-*-linux*
For this simple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
FYI, PR65787 only changes behavior for powerpc64le, so it's odd that you would
see any differences with or without those changes. The two patched routines
are never called for big endian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
With the smaller test, at least, this did not reproduce for me with r223868.
Patching up to latest and will try again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Confirmed with r224625, however.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
The tree-optimized dump shows:
void foo() ()
{
vector(2) long unsigned int vect_cst_.60;
vector(2) long unsigned int vect_cst_.59;
vector(2) long unsigned int vect_cst_.58;
struct A p1;
const struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Looking at the vsx_register_operand predicate in predicates.md, this seems to
need some TLC. Will discuss with Mike Meissner offline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jun 22 13:16:04 2015
New Revision: 224725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224725&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-06-22 Bill Schmidt
PR target/65914
* con
at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Will let this burn in for a week, and then plan to backport to 4.9/5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jul 6 02:07:49 2015
New Revision: 225441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-07-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r2247
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jul 6 02:08:59 2015
New Revision: 225442
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225442&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-07-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r2247
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm. I compiled it as stated and I see a bunch of code that appears to be
storing the ".disk/" string. So it doesn't look like dead code elimination.
Perhaps a branch is short circuiting this, or the address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Using current trunk, I compared the 193t.optimized dumps for the original
cdrom.ii attachment and for the same attachment modified to add the debug
output statement from the end of comment 2. Other than the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sorry, not from comment 2 on this bugzilla; comment 2 from the launchpad bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
I tried the same thing with a snapshot of the 5 branch I had lying around:
r225783 from 2015-07-14. I also don't see any differences in the output from
the middle end, as I would expect since this bug has sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Same experiment with r18 from 2015-04-18. Same results.
At this point I can't reproduce anything from the information given. Do you
have any local modifications that could be causing this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
The fix was accepted and committed upstream in the LLVM compiler-rt project.
Jakub, is applying this patch to GCC's libsanitizer ok?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jul 29 03:33:10 2015
New Revision: 226335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-28 Bill Schmidt
PR sanitizer/63927
* saniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Argh, sorry, Markus. Thanks for fixing it up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #56 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #53)
> I'm not a fan of a tree-level unroller. It's impossible to make good
> decisions about unroll factors that early. But your second approach sounds
> quite promis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #59 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #57)
>
> It's been a long time since I've done SPEC measuring with/without
> -funroll-loops (or/and -fpeel-loops). Note that these flags have
> secondary effects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #61 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to amker from comment #60)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #59)
> > We don't have a lot of data yet, but we have seen several examples in SPEC
> > and other benchmarks where turning on -fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67211
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
Created attachment 36229
--> https://gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67297
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
The ABI is now available free of registration:
https://members.openpowerfoundation.org/document/dl/576
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20)
..
>
> I see it only failing due to cost issues (tried ppc64le and -mcpu=power8).
> The unaligned loads cost 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 36261
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36261&action=edit
tree-slp-details dump
Ah, I was looking at the code in the test suite this time, rather than the raw
posted cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, thank you for the clarification. So does this require
-fvect-cost-model=unlimited on all targets? If so, then I'll move on;
otherwise I'll have a look at the Power-specific cost issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #25)
> Ah, thank you for the clarification. So does this require
> -fvect-cost-model=unlimited on all targets? If so, then I'll move on;
> otherwise I'll have a look a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
Summary: FMA with no add operand produced by convert_mul_to_fma
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
00:55:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 23620
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23620
Failing subroutine from 191.fma3d
Sorry the subroutine was mangled in the comments. Here's a c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
Summary: [Code Improvement] Use multiplication by magic number
for integer division by constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
18:34:41 UTC ---
OK, interesting, thanks for the information. It seems the analysis of the cost
is not particularly good here. I'll dig into where the expansion is occurring.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
18:46:27 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Mar 11 18:46:24 2011
New Revision: 170882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170882
Log:
Backport PR tree-optimization/48067 from ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48067
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
18:52:45 UTC ---
I verified this on branches/ibm/gcc-4_5-branch, and it regtests successfully
there as well. Thanks for the quick turnaround!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux, others |powerpc64-linux
Component|r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48077
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-11
21:27:25 UTC ---
BTW, I mis-entered the optimization level before. The code generation was at
-O2 when the mulhw was expanded into shifts/adds with the default P6 tuning.
At -O3 and up, the mulh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45714
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-16
18:00:31 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Mar 16 18:00:23 2011
New Revision: 171057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171057
Log:
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2010-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45844
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-03-16
18:00:32 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Mar 16 18:00:23 2011
New Revision: 171057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171057
Log:
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2010-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48765
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.sandiford at linaro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-24
18:02:27 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue May 24 18:02:22 2011
New Revision: 174129
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174129
Log:
2011-05-24 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-24
18:06:04 UTC ---
Above is first of a series of patches. It handles converting __builtin_powi to
a sequence of multiplies in the cse_sincos gimple pass. More to come.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48738
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-25
12:15:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I don't think this is a library issue. Maybe Bill is interested / has an
> opinion..
Just to agree that it is WAD. The proposed solution just moves th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-25
13:35:58 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed May 25 13:35:53 2011
New Revision: 174196
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174196
Log:
2011-05-25 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-25
13:42:14 UTC ---
Patch 2 transforms pow(x,n) to multiplies for integer n, similar to patch 1 for
powi(x,n).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-26
12:12:00 UTC ---
I'll take a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-26
13:24:31 UTC ---
Rainer, please try:
Index: tree-ssa-math-opts.c
===
--- tree-ssa-math-opts.c(revision 174277)
+++ tree-ssa-mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-27
13:30:01 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 27 13:29:57 2011
New Revision: 174331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174331
Log:
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49189
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-27
13:30:03 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 27 13:29:57 2011
New Revision: 174331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174331
Log:
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
Summary: Error building libgcc for powerpc64 since r174305
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-27
18:46:14 UTC ---
As reported by Dominique d'Humieres, regress bot shows the same issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/regtest/HEAD/native-lastbuild.txt.gzip
Andrew Pinski noted the similar bug on ARM:
htt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-27
19:11:22 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 27 19:11:19 2011
New Revision: 174349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174349
Log:
2011-05-27 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2011-05-27
19:39:11 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 27 19:39:07 2011
New Revision: 174358
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174358
Log:
2011-05-27 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49195
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from William J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2011-05-30 17:12:58 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon May 30 17:12:53 2011
New Revision: 174446
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174446
Log:
2011-05-30 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31249
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #11 from William J. Schmidt
2011-06-06 14:27:44 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jun 6 14:27:41 2011
New Revision: 174701
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174701
Log:
2011-06-06 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-07
11:51:56 UTC ---
I'll have a look. With -ffast-math, cabs is converted to
sqrt(pow(rpart,2.0),pow(ipart,2.0)). Not sure yet why the pow calls aren't
converted back to x*x form. We may have to r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-07
12:08:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'll have a look. With -ffast-math, cabs is converted to
> sqrt(pow(rpart,2.0),pow(ipart,2.0)). Not sure yet why the pow calls aren't
> converted back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-07
13:23:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Please ignore that. It leaked in when I was trying to CC somebody.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt
2011-06-07 15:12:07 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jun 7 15:12:04 2011
New Revision: 174752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174752
Log:
2011-06-07 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #13 from William J. Schmidt
2011-06-07 15:24:29 UTC ---
Work is complete on the planned changes. Note there is an open regression
PR49302 that has yet to be addressed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-07
20:25:20 UTC ---
Because the compile uses -O0 and the link uses -O2 -ffast-math, we have a
mismatch of expectations. With -O0 and no -ffast-math, builtin cabs isn't
folded into sqrt(pow+pow) duri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-08
13:51:34 UTC ---
Hm, this isn't going to work for all cases. When I reproduce the problem on
powerpc64-linux without forcing a hardware square root, I see:
spawn /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2011-06-08 17:07:42 UTC ---
Proposed fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00661.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-10
11:23:16 UTC ---
OK, I'll clean this up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49361
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-10
11:41:15 UTC ---
OK, I won't clean this up. ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #11 from William J. Schmidt
2011-06-10 15:28:52 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jun 10 15:28:46 2011
New Revision: 174912
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=174912
Log:
2011-06-10 Bill Schmidt
PR lto/493
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt
2011-06-10 15:33:53 UTC ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49302
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49383
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49383
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-20
01:02:33 UTC ---
We've verified that one-line fix allows the bootstrap to complete successfully.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-20
15:16:59 UTC ---
Gimple out of the middle end looks fine. From 142t.optimized:
;; Function nu_derivs (__massivenu_MOD_nu_derivs, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=708,
cgraph_uid=0)
nu_derivs ()
{
real(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49472
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-06-20
15:18:55 UTC ---
Sorry, paste error. That was the wrong gimple dump. HERE is 142.optimized:
;; Function nu_derivs (__massivenu_MOD_nu_derivs, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=708,
cgraph_uid=0)
nu_deriv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
Summary: Reassociation rank algorithm does not include all
non-NULL operands
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-14
19:22:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 24760
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24760
Gimple prior to reassoc2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-14
19:23:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 24761
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24761
Gimple following reassoc2 with TARGET_MEM_REFs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-14
19:25:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 24764
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24764
Gimple prior to expand, r161840
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-14
19:25:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 24763
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24763
Gimple prior to expand, r161839
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-14
19:24:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 24762
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24762
Gimple following reassoc2 with MEM_REFs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-15
20:15:09 UTC ---
We ran some experiments attempting to restore the r161839 behavior, either by
lowering the rank of memory references or raising the rank of phi references.
Although both experime
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-15
20:19:21 UTC ---
Our experiments didn't distinguish between loop-carried PHIs and other join
points, so that might be another avenue of attack.
|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2011-07-20
16:28:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 24798
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24798
Proposed patch
I'm attaching a pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-20 16:39:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 24799
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24799
The real proposed patch
Oh, for Pete's sake. I attached the wrong patch. Here's the right on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #11 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-20 19:01:30 UTC ---
I forgot to mention some justification for the value of PHI_LOOP_BIAS, and I
notice it has a misleading comment by it at the moment. The value is a
constant that should be large
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #13 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-21 18:07:42 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jul 21 18:07:39 2011
New Revision: 176581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176581
Log:
2011-07-21 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #14 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-21 20:27:21 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jul 21 20:27:17 2011
New Revision: 176585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176585
Log:
2011-07-21 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #15 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-29 18:40:26 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jul 29 18:40:21 2011
New Revision: 176948
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176948
Log:
2011-07-29 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
--- Comment #16 from William J. Schmidt
2011-07-31 18:58:09 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Sun Jul 31 18:58:06 2011
New Revision: 176984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176984
Log:
2011-07-29 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71648
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71294
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Just recording that this patch was rejected on the list at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02136.html, so we still need a
fix for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71722
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
1401 - 1500 of 1697 matches
Mail list logo
