Hello,
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> > +FAIL: gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c scan-tree-dump-times unrolljam "applying
> >> > unroll and jam" 6
> >>
> >> Hrmpf, I'll have a look :-/ Thanks for noticing.
> >
> > A strange interaction with LIM, which only does something on 32bit, but
> >
Hi Michael,
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>> > > testsuite/
>> > > * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.
>> >
>> > this testcase now FAILs on 32-bit targets (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.11
>> > and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, also reports for i686-pc-linux-gnu
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> > > testsuite/
> > > * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.
> >
> > this testcase now FAILs on 32-bit targets (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.11
> > and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, also r
Hello,
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > testsuite/
> > * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.
>
> this testcase now FAILs on 32-bit targets (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.11
> and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, also reports for i686-pc-linux-gnu and
> i586-unknown-fre
Hi Michael,
> this was still collecting dust on my disk, so here it is. See the
> extensive comment in the patch for what happens, in short invariant IVs
> are affine but still have to be handled more conservative than other
> affine IVs in transformations that reorder instructions. Making ou
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:36 AM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this was still collecting dust on my disk, so here it is. See the
> extensive comment in the patch for what happens, in short invariant IVs
> are affine but still have to be handled more conservative than other
> affine IVs in trans
