On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:32 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Thanks for the review.
>
>
> On 19/09/16 23:40, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:21 PM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/09/16 21:31, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 a
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 19/09/16 23:40, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:21 PM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 14/09/16 21:31, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 25 August 2016 at 22:24, Richard
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:21 PM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
> On 14/09/16 21:31, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> On 25 August 2016 at 22:24, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at
Hi Richard,
On 14/09/16 21:31, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 25 August 2016 at 22:24, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:09 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi,
On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10,
On 09.08.2016 15:43, kugan wrote:
Hi,
The test-case in PR72835 is failing with -O2 and passing with
-fno-tree-reassoc. It also passes with -O2 -fno-tree-vrp.
diff of .115t.dse2 and .116t.reassoc1 for the c++ testcase is as follows, which
looks OK.
+ unsigned int _16;
+ unsigned int _17;
+ u
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 25 August 2016 at 22:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:09 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Je
Hi Richard,
On 25 August 2016 at 22:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:09 AM, kugan
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:09 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being i
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00872.html
Thanks,
Kugan
On 11 August 2016 at 09:09, kugan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
Hi,
On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being in the ops
list for passing changed to rewrite_expr_tree in the case of mul
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
>> I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being in the ops
>> list for passing changed to rewrite_expr_tree in the case of multiplication
>> by negate. If we have comb
On 10/08/16 18:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being in the ops
list for passing changed to rewrite_expr_tree in the case of multiplication
by negate. If we have combined (-1), as in the t
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
> I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being in the ops
> list for passing changed to rewrite_expr_tree in the case of multiplication
> by negate. If we have combined (-1), as in the testcase, we will not have
> the (-1) an
On 10/08/16 08:51, kugan wrote:
Hi Jakub,
On 10/08/16 07:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:51:08AM +1000, kugan wrote:
On 10/08/16 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
There was no new regression while testing. I also moved th
Hi Jakub,
On 10/08/16 07:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:51:08AM +1000, kugan wrote:
On 10/08/16 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
There was no new regression while testing. I also moved the testcase from
gcc.dg/torture/pr72
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:51:08AM +1000, kugan wrote:
> On 10/08/16 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
> >>There was no new regression while testing. I also moved the testcase from
> >>gcc.dg/torture/pr72835.c to gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72835.c. Is this
Hi Andrew,
On 10/08/16 07:50, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:42 PM, kugan wrote:
On 09/08/16 23:43, kugan wrote:
Hi,
The test-case in PR72835 is failing with -O2 and passing with
-fno-tree-reassoc. It also passes with -O2 -fno-tree-vrp.
diff of .115t.dse2 and .116t.reassoc
Hi Jakub,
On 10/08/16 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
There was no new regression while testing. I also moved the testcase from
gcc.dg/torture/pr72835.c to gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72835.c. Is this OK for trunk?
This looks strange. The tree-ssa-rea
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:42 PM, kugan wrote:
>
>
> On 09/08/16 23:43, kugan wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The test-case in PR72835 is failing with -O2 and passing with
>> -fno-tree-reassoc. It also passes with -O2 -fno-tree-vrp.
>>
>> diff of .115t.dse2 and .116t.reassoc1 for the c++ testcase is as
>> fo
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
> There was no new regression while testing. I also moved the testcase from
> gcc.dg/torture/pr72835.c to gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72835.c. Is this OK for trunk?
This looks strange. The tree-ssa-reassoc.c code has been trying to never
reuse SSA_NAME
On 09/08/16 23:43, kugan wrote:
Hi,
The test-case in PR72835 is failing with -O2 and passing with
-fno-tree-reassoc. It also passes with -O2 -fno-tree-vrp.
diff of .115t.dse2 and .116t.reassoc1 for the c++ testcase is as
follows, which looks OK.
+ unsigned int _16;
+ unsigned int _17;
+ u
Hi,
The test-case in PR72835 is failing with -O2 and passing with
-fno-tree-reassoc. It also passes with -O2 -fno-tree-vrp.
diff of .115t.dse2 and .116t.reassoc1 for the c++ testcase is as
follows, which looks OK.
+ unsigned int _16;
+ unsigned int _17;
+ unsigned int _18;
:
_1 =
22 matches
Mail list logo
