https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #30 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #28)
> Fixed for GCC 6 and GCC 5.
Ok, great. Matthias just imported r234858 for gcc-5 yesterday. I'll report back
in case the issue persists.
Thanks for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo ---
Fixed for GCC 6 and GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #27 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Apr 9 02:46:50 2016
New Revision: 234847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234847=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2016-04-03 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #26 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #23)
> I guess the proper solution for this issue would be running an
> address-mode-selection optimization pass after reload to fix up the reload
> choices.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #25 from Oleg Endo ---
Tests on sh-elf looked good. I'll wait for the nightly sh4-linux test results
and backport the patch to GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Apr 3 12:50:54 2016
New Revision: 234702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234702=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/70416
PR target/67391
* config/sh/sh.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #21)
> I'll see if there's some other way...
With the patch below, I get
sum: 3342539 -> 3342639+100 / +0.002992 %
for the CSiBE set. The increases are because r14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #20)
>
> Interesting, so it seems the observation you made in the previous comment is
> a result of somehow reverting the changes in PR 67391.
The changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #18)
>
> The GCC testsuite results look OK. However, CSiBE shows
>
> sum: 3342539 -> 3351695+9156 / +0.273924 %
>
> which is not so nice. For example, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #20 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
> This PR here seems to be a regression that has been caused by the patches
> for PR 67391.
Interesting, so it seems the observation you made in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
This PR here seems to be a regression that has been caused by the patches for
PR 67391.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17)
>
> I'm now testing this patch on sh-elf...
The GCC testsuite results look OK. However, CSiBE shows
sum: 3342539 -> 3351695+9156 / +0.273924 %
which is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #16)
>
> Wow, great to hear :).
I'm now testing this patch on sh-elf...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
> >
> > Maybe at that stage in the reload code it will end up using the last *addsi3
> > pattern and not try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
>
> Maybe at that stage in the reload code it will end up using the last *addsi3
> pattern and not try to look for a new pattern in the .md when it wants to
> change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
>
> (insn 516 508 510 18 (set (reg:SI 0 r0)
> (plus:SI (reg:SI 2 r2)
> (const_int 4 [0x4]))) xxx.i:100 67 {*addsi3}
> (nil))
>
> which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38105|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 38105
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38105=edit
reduced test case for -O2 -fpic
reload1.c:reload_as_needed function generates the error message with
error_for_asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 38104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38104=edit
Preprocessed source for sprintf.c when building with -mlra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Hmm, unfortunately, passing -mlra for the whole build is apparently not a good
idea:
sprintf.c: In function 'rb_str_format':
sprintf.c:1217:1: error: unable to find a register to spill
}
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Ok, I have added -save-temps to the command line which created both assembly
output as well as the preprocessed output.
Adrian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 38103
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38103=edit
Assembly output for vm.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 38102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38102=edit
Preprocessed source for vm.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #3)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
> > You could try to compile the package with -mlra and see if it helps.
>
> I'm giving that a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #3)
>
> > What constraints does DTRACE_PROBE4 macro have?
>
> I'm not sure however where DTRACE_PROBE4 is defined. Is that specific for
> the build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
> You could try to compile the package with -mlra and see if it helps.
I'm giving that a try now and will report back shortly.
(In reply to Rich Felker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker ---
Since it's non-obvious where the relevant macros are defined, where that
__asm__ statement comes from, and what its operands are, it would be really
helpful if you or someone from the Ruby side could point it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
You could try to compile the package with -mlra and see if it helps.
30 matches
Mail list logo
