On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 11:34 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:18:27PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > AIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c -flto execution test
> > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c execution test
> > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_9.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
>
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 11:34 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:18:27PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > > AIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c -flto execution test
> > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c execution test
> > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_9.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
>
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:18:27PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > AIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c -flto execution test
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-28.c execution test
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_9.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> > execution test
> > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_9.f90
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 17:28 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 21:25 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> >> > 2013-05-05 Bill Schmidt
> >> >
> >> > * gimple-ssa
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 21:25 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> > 2013-05-05 Bill Schmidt
>> >
>> > * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (slsr_process_phi): Re-enable.
>> > (f
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 21:25 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > 2013-05-05 Bill Schmidt
> >
> > * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (slsr_process_phi): Re-enable.
> > (find_candidates_in_block): Re-enable slsr_process_phi.
> >
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> 2013-05-05 Bill Schmidt
>
> * gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c (slsr_process_phi): Re-enable.
> (find_candidates_in_block): Re-enable slsr_process_phi.
> (create_phi_basis): Fix double counting of candidate adjustm
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> When creating a phi-adjustment along an incoming edge, where the related
> argument should use the "hidden basis" directly, I created a situation
> where we double-count the subsequent adjustment based on the candidate's
> index. The candidat
When creating a phi-adjustment along an incoming edge, where the related
argument should use the "hidden basis" directly, I created a situation
where we double-count the subsequent adjustment based on the candidate's
index. The candidate's index shouldn't be taken into account at all for
the edge
