http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52614
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-05 12:46:12 UTC ---
Forget that last comment. As Richard pointed out on gcc-patches: "That's
probably more a C language question - you would get valid C rejected with
-fno-common. But maybe -ftre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-05
16:47:32 UTC ---
I verified that the looping occurs inside the PPL library, on a call to
ppl_PIP_Problem_is_satisfiable. I used ppl_PIP_Problem_ascii_dump to examine
the "pip" variable passed int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-05
17:06:47 UTC ---
Opened a bug report as https://www.cs.unipr.it/mantis/view.php?id=353 against
PPL.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-06
12:09:47 UTC ---
PPL administrator "bagnara" was very helpful in investigating this.
The PPL code is not actually looping, but simply is taking a very long time to
analyze a large input set. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-06
19:08:09 UTC ---
Roberto, I tried your patch, but got the following error:
PPL error code -8
PPL C interface error:
ppl_set_deterministic_timeout: the PPL Watchdog library is not enabled.
I assu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50439
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-09 16:03:27 UTC ---
FWIW, my original compile did eventually complete (after 31.5 hours)...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52937
Bug #: 52937
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in several cpu2006 benchmarks
with -fprofile-use (assert in get_loop_body)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52937
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-12
16:15:24 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Apr 12 16:15:13 2012
New Revision: 186384
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186384
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-12 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-04-13
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-13
19:41:18 UTC ---
When changing from the original form of the patch to the form that recorded
repeated ops in the ops table, I missed the effect on undistribution where a
term contains a multiply o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-13
20:46:27 UTC ---
Here's a patch that fixes the reduced test case but is otherwise untested. I
don't know what "the polyhedron tests aermod.490 and doduc.f90" are; I don't
find them in the gcc tes
||2012-04-13
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-14
00:07:11 UTC ---
I've found that the cpu2006 failures are fixed by the patch in PR52976. I have
to leave for an obligation tonight, but will investigate the remaining failures
in these two issues
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-14
15:05:37 UTC ---
The following patch fixes both reduced test cases and appears to fix the SPEC
problems in PR52980 as well. Bootstrap/regression test in progress, and will
then do a complete set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52980
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-14
16:54:02 UTC ---
Patch bootstraps and passes regressions; all SPEC tests build cleanly. Will
submit today to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-16 12:16:04 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 16 12:15:50 2012
New Revision: 186493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186493
Log:
2012-04-16 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #16 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-18 12:25:30 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 18 12:25:17 2012
New Revision: 186567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186567
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-18 Bill Schmidt
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #17 from William J. Schmidt
2012-04-18 12:29:39 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 18 12:29:23 2012
New Revision: 186568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186568
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-18 Bill Schmidt
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||2012-04-18
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-18
23:52:41 UTC
||ibm.com, wschmidt at gcc
||dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44214
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44214
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-20
14:19:23 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 20 14:19:13 2012
New Revision: 186625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186625
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-20 Bill Schmidt
PR rt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44214
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-20
14:45:52 UTC ---
Closing per comment #2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42534
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-20
14:53:43 UTC ---
No longer reproduces in 4.8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53076
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-23
14:06:17 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 23 14:06:11 2012
New Revision: 186709
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186709
Log:
gcc-testsuite:
2012-04-23 Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53076
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-24
01:12:07 UTC ---
Thanks, Joseph -- I'll get that fixed up. Appreciate the help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-04-24
15:52:04 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 24 15:51:58 2012
New Revision: 186771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186771
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-24 Bill Schmidt
PR ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47197
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56843
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 21 21:40:14 2013
New Revision: 203910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203910&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2013-10-21 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2013-04-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
vect-96.c is still broken per
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-10/msg02115.html.
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned
access" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Richi -- yes, I'll give this a try later today (lots of meetings in the
way but I'll get to it sooner or later).
Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hi Richi,
Passes bootstrap on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and fixes this test, but breaks
two others:
57,60c57,68
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
<
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, testing in progress.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Initial news is not good -- I am seeing a lot of ICEs go by as the testing
proceeds, including in vect-96.c and vect-42.c.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
spawn /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/xgcc -B/home/wschmidt/gcc
/build/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/ /home/wschmidt/gcc/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/testsu
ite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c -fno-diagnostics-show-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50180
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50181
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39976
--- Comment #38 from William J. Schmidt
2011-11-17 15:17:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 25845
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25845
Expand details dump for reduced test case
Attaching the full details dump from cfgexpand for t
|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #40 from William J. Schmidt
2011-11-18 23:21:25 UTC ---
OK, sounds good. I'll take this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39976
--- Comment #42 from William J. Schmidt
2011-12-08 22:00:52 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Dec 8 22:00:38 2011
New Revision: 182140
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182140
Log:
2011-12-08 Bill Schmidt
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39976
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt 2012-01-07
00:13:10 UTC ---
This was "solved" (or became dormant) with revision 171450 on trunk:
2011-03-25 Richard Guenther
* passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Add FRE pass after
early SRA.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-01-09
13:06:34 UTC ---
Sure, I'll at least have a look at it when I get some time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-01-09
21:57:57 UTC ---
I should note that the problem still persists in 4.7 when -fno-tree-fre is
specified.
For 4.6, I am working on a solution along the lines Richi outlined above. We
may want to co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2012-01-11
16:52:13 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jan 11 16:52:03 2012
New Revision: 183101
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183101
Log:
gcc:
2012-01-11 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2012-01-11
22:37:33 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jan 11 22:37:26 2012
New Revision: 183110
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183110
Log:
gcc:
2012-01-11 Bill Schmidt
PR tr
|unassigned at gcc dot |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2012-01-13
22:27:48 UTC ---
I've started to look at this -- I'll plan to get a patch in place for 4.8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt
2012-01-18 19:28:23 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jan 18 19:28:19 2012
New Revision: 183284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183284
Log:
gcc:
2012-01-11 Bill Schmidt
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #11 from William
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88497
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, reassociation sounds like the right place to look at this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88497
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Reassociation width should be 4 for this case per the target hook. Kelvin, you
can experiment with rs6000_reassociation_width to see if larger values give you
what you expect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes. See, for example,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-12/msg02508.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks! I've asked our performance team to re-measure with this change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
From the original reporter:
Partially unrolling the outermost loop in the innermost loop body enables data
reuse for array A (see source) thereby improving the mem-ops/compute ratio and
providing the performa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, we don't want to encourage disabling cunrolli by hand for production use.
This test case is interesting because it shows a tension between complete
unrolling of inner loops and classical HPC loop optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
> I don't see anything to improve either (as far as unroll-and-jam is
> concerned).
> It's quite possible that cunrolli is harming more than helping in this case,
> b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
"Values shorter than 32 bits are sign-extended or zero-extended, depending on
whether they are signed or unsigned." Source:
https://www.polyomino.org.uk/publications/2011/Power-Arch-32-bit-ABI-supp-1.0-Embedd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88877
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> So, both the following patches should fix it IMHO, but no idea which one if
> any is right.
> With
> --- gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md.jj 2019-01-01 12:37:44.30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Actually I *think* the *vsx_reduc__v4sf_scalar code is probably
okay. This is all being done with insns that should leave the reduction result
in the right-hand element of the register (element 3 for BE, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
Oh, sorry, I missed that in all the commentary. I had looked at the code and
seen the "obvious" problem in the expansion, and noted you had suggested that
also. Should have read further.
I think that's rig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #21 from Bill Schmidt ---
We should probably disable the _v4sf_scalar one for LE also, as this seems to
be doing a similar trick for V4SF.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt ---
(I'll test with both disabled for LE and report results.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Created attachment 45506 [details]
> patch for the * 0 issue in reassoc
>
> I am testing a mitigation (and missed optimization fix) in reassoc. Bill,
> can you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, fully agree -- I'll take care of that probably tomorrow. Too many
meetings this week...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt ---
I believe it's also incorrect (the assumption on the value being in element 3
is a big-endian statement) but latent because this is really hard to match.
I'll take an internal note to clean this up. I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88100
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #27 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jan 30 20:52:08 2019
New Revision: 268403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-30 Bill Schmidt
PR target/87064
* config/rs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 31 13:53:06 2019
New Revision: 268422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/89008
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 31 17:14:36 2019
New Revision: 268425
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Jan 31 21:55:45 2019
New Revision: 268431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Honza, sorry for being so late to respond! I had to poke the performance team
once more on this. Reverting this patch did indeed solve the problem for us on
trunk, and we are seeing far better performance th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #28 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Feb 4 16:47:12 2019
New Revision: 268523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268523&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-04 Bill Schmidt
PR target/87064
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87064
--- Comment #29 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Feb 4 16:48:30 2019
New Revision: 268524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-04 Bill Schmidt
PR target/87064
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
To your second point, the new intrinsic programming reference under development
already abandons the language about v[i], so that's covered. The next version
of the ABI will drop vector API stuff (chapter 6 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
To be absolutely clear, code like
unsigned int get_auto_n_int ( vector unsigned int a, int n) { return
__builtin_vec_extract (a, n); }
is invalid. The second argument must be constant. This was not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
But this test stopped failing on January 21, so maybe the patch was applied
without the ChangeLog?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
My mistake. The patch did land on 1-22. I was looking at the wrong ChangeLog
(this is a testsuite fix). Looks like that patch is needed to be backported to
8 now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks! Bill Seurer, can you please verify this is fixed with GCC 8?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88919
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm. Hang on while I look at some history.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Let me take back what I said earlier. We've had full support for vec_extract
with a variable second argument for quite a long time. So let me try again
responding to comment #4.
We have special-case code f
301 - 400 of 1697 matches
Mail list logo
