https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Timothy Pearson from comment #10)
>
> It's even slow compared to P8 with mitigations applied. Do you have a link
> to the hostboot commit that may have enabled the P9 mitigation, or to the
> re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
I'll see if I can make time to look at this one soon. I suspect the new
peeling costs check from Robin just made this test invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
_Set8 wasn't supposed to be profitable before -- but this is an old test,
predating reasonable unaligned storage accesses with Power8 and later. We
should have vectorized both loops as soon as that came along
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85326
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 16 02:00:43 2018
New Revision: 259393
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259393&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite]
2018-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR testsuite/85326
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Apr 16 18:18:42 2018
New Revision: 259407
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259407&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite]
2018-04-16 Bill Schmidt
PR target/85080
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85424
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85198
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85198
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, but vulli does have the wrong element type, when you get a little deeper.
V2DI
size
unit-size
align:128 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canoni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85198
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I see Jakub's point now. And this whole business is a big mess -- probably
too late to change in 8, but we need to clean this up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
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=85216
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
This was prototyped and measured against the firmware fixes with
indistinguishable results. So the complexity of a software solution, with its
impacts on Linux distributions, was not warranted. (That is, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
PHP's reliance on frequent indirect branches makes it essentially the worst
case for this sort of thing. When Spectre v2 CVE mitigations are in place for
user code, you will see performance issues on all arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, thanks! I'd be very interested in hearing what you discover.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85216
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
I asked around a bit. On x86, user-user attacks are not mitigated by default.
To enable user-user mitigation:
echo 2 > /sys/kernel/debug/x86/ibrs_enabled
My source tells me:
8<---
Red Hat explai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
There are six vulnerabilities like this in the SLSR code:
replace_mult_candidate (2)
replace_rhs_if_not_dup (1)
replace_one_candidate (3)
I'll work on a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Proposed patch here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg01183.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85894
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 25 19:12:16 2018
New Revision: 260772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/85712
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch from c#6 corrects a problem discovered when backporting to GCC 6. With
the two patches, no regressions are seen in trunk, 8, 7, or 6.
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC 8.1 has regressed by about 30% compared with GCC 7.3 on one of the Eigen
test cases when measured on Power9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 44220
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44220&action=edit
Source file that shows the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86020
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jun 1 12:55:06 2018
New Revision: 261065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261065&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-01 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/85712
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jun 1 12:57:16 2018
New Revision: 261066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-01 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/85712
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jun 1 13:00:57 2018
New Revision: 261067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-01 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/85712
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63281
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Also reported by Donald Stence this week:
The compiler produces excessive sequences to synthesize some literal constants.
This contributes excess path length and potentially latency.
Constants requiring only
,
||segher at gcc dot gnu.org,
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86197
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Note, this is restricted to powerpc64le using ELFv2 ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86367
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
That makes sense -- we already have a NaN rather than an SNaN by the time we
hit the Ealias pass.
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The MASS (Mathematical Acceleration Subsystem) libraries provide alternatives
to math functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69678
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com wrote:
>
> OK, so -mveclibabi=mass isn't needed to reproduce the issue, nor is
> linking -lmassv or -lmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.0, 8.3.0, 9.1.0
--- Comment #13 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.4.0
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt
*-*-*
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
We're going to need a fix for Power as well. We see a 12% drop in 456.hmmer
around July 2. We lose vectorization and end up with a couple of isel's in the
loop (equivalent to x86 cmov).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Richi corrected me -- this is not vectorization, but use of SSE on lane zero to
do scalar computation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
r8 should be the base address, for what it's worth. For a version of GCC where
this is working, a data address is loaded there. For the failing version, we
see a value of 1 loaded instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
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=91275
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks for the report! Sorry for taking so long to look at this. Swap
optimization treats vpmsumd as swappable, but unlike vpmsumb, vpmsumh, and
vpmsumw, it is not. Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
I don't *believe* that "#pragma target" works with -mno-optimize-swaps, but you
could try it. I think that mechanism only works for certain flags, but I
haven't tried that one.
I think inline asm should ki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
I tested #pragma target -mno-optimize-swaps, and it doesn't help. The only
options that can be specified with #pragma target for Power are listed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/PowerPC-Function-At
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Committed to trunk with 276410. Forgot to annotate the ChangeLog with the PR,
so here it is:
[gcc]
2019-10-01 Bill Schmidt
* config/rs6000/rs6000-p8swap.c (rtx_is_swappable_p): Don't swap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Excellent! I'm glad you have a workaround for the time being.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 7 18:23:20 2019
New Revision: 276667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276667&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2019-10-07 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 7 19:34:41 2019
New Revision: 276669
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276669&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2019-10-07 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 7 20:50:05 2019
New Revision: 276678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2019-10-07 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92074
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2019-10-15
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Confirmed, mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Oct 15 12:44:25 2019
New Revision: 276999
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276999&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/92093
* gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92093
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83332
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Possibly a similar reason as x86, vect_cond_mixed is set but you cannot do
> V2DIV2DF mixed condition handling?
That appears to be the case:
proc check_effectiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83332
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Uh, actually that is not quite right. We do have vcondv4sfv4si and
vcondv4siv4sf patterns. So it looks like we need to adjust the test case until
such time as we add the v2di/v2df ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83332
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83332
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Proposed patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00656.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83332
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Dec 12 20:44:57 2017
New Revision: 255588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-12 Bill Schmidt
PR target/83332
* config/rs6
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed.
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42857
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42857&action=edit
Source file
One of our performance folks ran across
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83403
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think the issue may be in this code:
/* For any other increment, if this is a multiply candidate, we
must introduce a temporary T and initialize it with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Here's an untested patch (bootstraps successfully but regtest is still
ongoing):
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Jakub, good catch on the HWI overflow. I'll make those changes and
re-test. FWIW, the patch as proposed above passes regstrap and will be good
enough for testing whether this indeed is the right appr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Revised patch:
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (rev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
I was able to build an i386 cross, and this wasn't sufficient to solve the
problem. I see:
Processing dependency tree rooted at 1.
Inserting initializer: slsr_10 = scale_7(D) * 3;
Increment vector:
0 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
I see that I was looking at the wrong leg here. This is a CAND_ADD, not a
CAND_MULT, and I'm getting strange cost results on that path. The proposed
change is still appropriate in my view, but not relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, for the i386 case, this simply comes down to the following.
- mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4
- mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8
Garbage in, garbag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
By contrast, on powerpc64le, we see:
- mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8
- mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4
These are the sort of costs one would expect,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|powe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Also fails with -mcpu=power6 -maltivec.
Also succeeds with -mcpu=power9.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43026&action=edit
Test case demonstrating the
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
Known to fail||7.2.1, 8.0
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83677
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jan 8 23:08:34 2018
New Revision: 256358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256358&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-01-08 Bill Schmidt
PR target/83677
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83677
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|8.0 |
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83677
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Sun Jan 14 17:47:30 2018
New Revision: 256670
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256670&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-01-14 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83677
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Sun Jan 14 17:49:39 2018
New Revision: 256671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-01-14 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83677
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83862
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
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=83946
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Sun Jan 21 13:26:07 2018
New Revision: 256931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256931&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-01-21 Bill Schmidt
David Edelsohn
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Sun Jan 21 13:32:58 2018
New Revision: 256932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256932&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2018-01-21 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Segher was kind enough to run AIX tests for me last night. There is still one
non-blocking issue with safe-indirect-jump-8.c, which should be skipped for
AIX, since it doesn't generate sibcalls to non-local f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jan 22 02:46:11 2018
New Revision: 256939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-21 Bill Schmidt
PR target/83946
* gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Does this work on GCC 7 (obviously without -mno-fold-gimple)? If so, please
mark as [8 regression] in title.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
That looks completely invalid, the args should be vector long long, not long
long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
But I assume that's your transcription error. In the test case the arguments
are vector long long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84033
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81038
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org|wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81038
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
The commentary for r248678 reads in part: "Compute costs for doing no peeling
at all, compare to the best peeling costs so far and avoid peeling if cheaper."
Indeed, if you look at the vect dump for r248677,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81038
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Prospective patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00137.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78303
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
The memory layout is correct. It should not change regardless of endianness
settings. (The byte order of each element is dependent upon the fundamental
endianness, but the order of array elements with respec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84266
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
I wonder how many failures are left if that invalid cast is removed from the
code? It is just wrong and unnecessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81038
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
401 - 500 of 1697 matches
Mail list logo
