[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #18 from Anton Blanchard --- Urgh too early in the morning for me. PR71866 created, with the correct backtrace.

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Anton Blanchard from comment #16) > I'm seeing a lockup in gcc with this patch on ppc64le. Run as: > > gcc -O2 -c testcase.i Can you file a new bug for this? Also your backtrace is just for

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #16 from Anton Blanchard --- I'm seeing a lockup in gcc with this patch on ppc64le. Run as: gcc -O2 -c testcase.i It gets stuck in: #0 0x3fffb7e5e3e8 in __waitpid_nocancel () at ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:84 #1

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 Anton Blanchard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anton at samba dot org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 Bug 70159 depends on bug 23286, which changed state. Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Jul 12 13:32:04 2016 New Revision: 238242 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238242=gcc=rev Log: 2016-07-12 Steven Bosscher Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, hiraditya at msn dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 > > AK changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 AK changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hiraditya at msn dot com --- Comment #11 from AK

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, spop at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 > > --- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop --- > Created attachment 37927 > -->

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop --- Created attachment 37927 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37927=edit patch for hoisting expressions Updated the patch from PR23286 to hoist the redundant expressions: : inv_4 =

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Note this is both a hoisting and a sinking issue. > Hoisting should happen before sinking. > LLVM looks like it only implements sinking. You are right: LLVM

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Note this is both a hoisting and a sinking issue. Hoisting should happen before sinking. LLVM looks like it only implements sinking.

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Related to 5738. Try with -Os and you will see the RTL non PRE based GCSE does most of the job: foo_p: fmovs4, 1.0e+0 fdivs0, s4, s0 fsubs1, s1, s3 fsubs2,

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Oh and bug 23286.

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- "Related to bug 5738."

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop --- Right, with -Ofast it be able to optimize away the branch or selects. The original benchmark had something more complex than fadd to use the tmin and tmax results. Here is one more test using the results in

[Bug middle-end/70159] missed CSE optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1