https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I've traced this down to its sordid origins. The problem arises when the
test case is run on a machine using an old target assembler. If the assembler
doesn't support POWER8 instructions, this causes TA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71390
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jun 3 13:14:26 2016
New Revision: 237066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237066&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-03 Bill Schmidt
PR target/70957
* gcc.targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Jun 3 13:18:25 2016
New Revision: 237067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-03 Bill Schmidt
PR target/70957
* gcc.targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Right, sorry about the ubsan dependency screwup. I'll move the test case later
today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
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=81162
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jul 17 19:12:11 2017
New Revision: 250284
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-17 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/81162
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
The code is being vectorized in the "fails" dump and not being vectorized in
the "works" dump. This cannot be due to r249424, which does gimple folding on
some Power-specific built-ins, for this is a generic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le. I'll have to build a cross.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Carl, please revert the patch until you have time to investigate. This will
cause havoc every time we vectorize with these patterns.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm, the symptom looks very much like another issue I've been looking at on
trunk. There may be an issue with the statement->candidate mapping hash table
that's responsible for both. It appears to be a somewh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
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=81504
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=80695
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Sun Jul 23 15:32:37 2017
New Revision: 250461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-23 Bill Schmidt
PR target/80695
* config/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Try -fno-slsr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
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=81162
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 25 19:40:50 2017
New Revision: 250542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250542&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 25 19:42:36 2017
New Revision: 250543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Jul 25 19:44:10 2017
New Revision: 250544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
This is likely the same as another problem that recently came up (not yet filed
as the source is sensitive). SLSR is sensitive to addresses of PHI
instructions remaining the same throughout the pass, but gimp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I've now confirmed this is the problem. I have a rough patch for trunk,
and backporting it to GCC 5 r236439 verifies that this fixes it. Still
verifying bootstrap/regression on trunk, and need to do some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Do you see the same behavior with "vec_ld (1, 2);" ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
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=81622
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 41874
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41874&action=edit
Patch under test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
This code was reviewed and approved by Richard back when it was first written.
It's been some time since this was written, so I don't recall the origin of the
array type, but it was definitely necessary. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
I should clarify that Richard reviewed the VEC_LD / VEC_ST code chunks. The
other pieces predate me. The stylistic issues were copied from another place
at the time and I missed those, sorry about that...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
I went spelunking and found that the ARRAY_TYPE change was added here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=237077. Looks like a
C++ implementation detail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++,
> in C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE.
> Anyway, y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch under test that fixes this case:
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-ssa-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
This is overkill, it has some test case fallout. Will have to look a bit
deeper.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> The TREE_INT_CST_LOW part looks suspicious. Also, wide-int.h should provide
> enough infrastructure so that you should be able to do everything on
> wide-int, n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> I had in mind something like
> wi::eq_p (wi::ext (w, TYPE_PRECISION (type), TYPE_SIGN (type)), w)
> or so.
Ah, good, thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 41899
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41899&action=edit
Patch under test
This is the patch I'm currently looking at. I am unhappy at having to use a
tree to get maxva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Aug 8 12:52:22 2017
New Revision: 250955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-08 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/81354
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed on trunk so far, and verified that a modified backport fixes the limited
range on 5.4 where the provided test case fails. Backports to follow in about
a week after burn-in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Proposed patch awaiting approval:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00347.html
||2017-08-10
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Working on a patch.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zoltan at hidvegi dot com
CC: segher at gcc dot gnu.org, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79845
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Aug 14 14:26:33 2017
New Revision: 251092
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251092&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-14 Bill Schmidt
PR target/79845
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79845
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 16 14:09:15 2017
New Revision: 251120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 16 14:11:26 2017
New Revision: 251121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 16 14:13:27 2017
New Revision: 251122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le on current trunk. I'll try a cross.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
With a cross it doesn't reproduce for current trunk (r251128) either, but does
reproduce with r250217 as originally reported. So I can look at that. Going
to check what made the problem go away also...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Just for the record, the problem disappears with r250523, in which a change to
reassociation of multiplication in match.pd causes the SLSR opportunities to
disappear. So the SLSR problem has just gone latent,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01145.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Aug 22 17:32:26 2017
New Revision: 251286
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251286&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-22 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/81488
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
I don't think this has anything to do with the swaps pass. I see the same
wrong code generation with -mno-optimize-swaps. I'll continue to investigate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, so the problem is in the swaps pass. It's just that the add of 16 is
correctly placed in every prior optimization pass following ivopts, which has
shifted it around in the usual fashion. Prior to swap op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Correction, the reconstruction happens *prior* to swap optimization so the
latter can't make the patterns unrecognizable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 42041
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42041&action=edit
Patch under test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Aug 25 15:08:30 2017
New Revision: 251355
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251355&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-25 Bill Schmidt
PR target/81504
* config/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed on trunk so far. Will commit backport in about a week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
The "altivec_vsumsws" pattern for little endian isn't working as intended.
This needs to be rewritten. So does the "altivec_vsum2sws" pattern. I'll work
on a patch early next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sure, I'll try to get to this this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Aug 29 14:41:53 2017
New Revision: 251414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-29 Bill Schmidt
Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed in trunk so far. Although this test case succeeds on GCC 7, the bug is
latent there, so I'll keep this open and backport the fix to other releases in
a week or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
-march is not required. This repros on powerpc64le-linux-gnu as well with just
-O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch submitted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01743.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 30 20:04:07 2017
New Revision: 251547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-30 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/81987
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed on trunk so far. Holding this open until the fix is backported in about
a week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Aug 31 20:28:17 2017
New Revision: 251575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-31 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82015
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 19:41:55 2017
New Revision: 251723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
PR target/81833
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:49:01 2017
New Revision: 251743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:50:38 2017
New Revision: 251744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:52:01 2017
New Revision: 251745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Sep 6 18:42:56 2017
New Revision: 251815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-06 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Sep 6 18:44:51 2017
New Revision: 251816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-06 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Sep 6 18:48:50 2017
New Revision: 251817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-06 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, I have backports prepared for 5, 6, and 7. Waiting a short time before
applying those.
Thanks!
Bill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Sun Sep 10 21:09:38 2017
New Revision: 251952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251952&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-10 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 12 21:02:13 2017
New Revision: 252042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-12 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 12 21:03:42 2017
New Revision: 252043
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-12 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 12 21:07:30 2017
New Revision: 252044
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252044&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-12 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
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: ---
Consider the following testcase, compiled at -O3 on powerpc64le:
extern int abs (int __x) __attribute__ ((__nothrow__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 42206
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42206&action=edit
Patch under test
Here's a patch I'm testing. It solves the problem for this test case but
hasn't been regstrapp
||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed||2017-09-19
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80697
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Can this be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82255
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 42217
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42217&action=edit
Test case patch
Here's a test case (and some associated changes to add debug code for the test
case) that can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81848
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Can this be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
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=82337
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think we can do something simpler by just keeping these abnormal SSA names
out of the basis chains in the table. Working on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 42248
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42248&action=edit
Proposed patch
Here's what I'm testing -- looks like it fixes this particular case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Revised and tested patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01836.html
701 - 800 of 1697 matches
Mail list logo
