[Bug target/101891] Adjust -fzero-call-used-regs to always use XOR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101891 --- Comment #9 from Arjan van de Ven --- I don't have recent measurements since we did this work quite some time ago. basically on the CPU level (speaking for Intel style cpus at least), a CPU can eliminate (meaning: no execution resources

[Bug target/101891] Adjust -fzero-call-used-regs to always use XOR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101891 Arjan van de Ven changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arjan at linux dot intel.com

[Bug libstdc++/101583] [12 Regression] error: use of deleted function when building gold

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101583 Arjan van de Ven changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arjan at linux dot intel.com

[Bug target/101456] Unnecessary vzeroupper when upper bits of YMM registers already zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101456 Arjan van de Ven changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arjan at linux dot intel.com

[Bug rtl-optimization/82153] missed optimization: double rounding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82153 --- Comment #4 from Arjan van de Ven --- btw gcc has no issue with just generating cvttsd2si int roundme2(double A) { return A * 4.3; } generates 20: f2 0f 59 05 00 00 00mulsd 0x0(%rip),%xmm0# 28 27:

[Bug rtl-optimization/82153] missed optimization: double rounding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82153 --- Comment #2 from Arjan van de Ven --- When a conversion is inexact, a truncated result is returned. If a converted result is larger than the maximum signed doubleword integer, the floating-point invalid exception is raised, and if this

[Bug rtl-optimization/82153] New: missed optimization: double rounding

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: arjan at linux dot intel.com Target Milestone: --- #include int roundme(double A) { return floor(A * 4.3); } leads to : 0: f2 0f 59 05 00 00 00mulsd 0x0(%rip),%xmm0# 8

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #19 from Arjan van de Ven --- > GCC is not just about x86. I know that, which is why I know my patch is not correct, but more of a precise bug report... clearly this need to be done in a way that does not hurt other architectures.

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #17 from Arjan van de Ven --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15) > Read https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00693.html also. There > is much more to that thread than just in August IIRC. Some in September and >

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #16 from Arjan van de Ven --- A comparable (but optimized to generate smaller asm) testcase is this: #include void RELU(float *buffer, int size) { float *ptr = (float *) __builtin_assume_aligned(buffer, 64); int i;

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #13 from Arjan van de Ven --- Created attachment 40422 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40422=edit generated ASM with vectorization (with patch / no fast-math)

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #12 from Arjan van de Ven --- Created attachment 40421 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40421=edit generated ASM without vectorization (no patch / no fast-math)

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #11 from Arjan van de Ven --- Created attachment 40420 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40420=edit generated ASM with vectorization and fast-math (no patch)

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #10 from Arjan van de Ven --- Created attachment 40419 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40419=edit generated ASM with vectorization (no patch / no fast-math)

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #9 from Arjan van de Ven --- Created attachment 40418 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40418=edit Makefile

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #8 from Arjan van de Ven --- Created attachment 40417 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40417=edit refined test case

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #7 from Arjan van de Ven --- Created attachment 40416 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40416=edit prototype patch

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 Arjan van de Ven changed: What|Removed |Added Version|6.1.1 |6.3.0 --- Comment #6 from Arjan van

[Bug target/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #5 from Arjan van de Ven --- I don't think that's completely true; it does use maxss (the non-vector one) for this code, so at least something thinks its safe to use max, just likely that something is after the vector phase?

[Bug libstdc++/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #2 from Arjan van de Ven --- I tried with <= and it doesn't seem all to eager to be vectorized that way either; fast-math works either way

[Bug tree-optimization/71921] New: missed vectorization optimization

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: arjan at linux dot intel.com Target Milestone: --- program below does not auto-vectorize to use the x86 "maxps" instruction even though gcc is smart enough to know there is a "maxss" instruction