http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
>
> Steven Bosscher changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #11 from Joey Ye ---
Repost from another record. It is annoying that after commenting one record it
automatically jumps to the next.
Here is good expansion:
;; _41 = _42 * 4;
(insn 20 19 0 (set (reg:SI 126 [ D.5038 ])
(ashift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #10 from Joey Ye ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, joey.ye at arm dot com wrote:
>
>
> But that doesn't make sense - it means that -fdisable-tree-forwprop4
> should get numbers back to good sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, joey.ye at arm dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
>
> --- Comment #8 from Joey Ye ---
> Here is tree dump and diff of 133t.forwprop4
> :
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #8 from Joey Ye ---
Here is tree dump and diff of 133t.forwprop4
:
Int_Index_4 = Int_1_Par_Val_3(D) + 5;
Int_Loc.0_5 = (unsigned int) Int_Index_4;
_6 = Int_Loc.0_5 * 4;
_8 = Arr_1_Par_Ref_7(D) + _6;
*_8 = Int_2_Par_Val_10(D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #7 from Joey Ye ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Joey Ye from comment #4)
> > -fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
>
> The former is strange because it's the only pas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Note that we can probably avoid regressing TER by removing the dead stmt
in forwprop itself (which would be appropriate at this stage).
But as that doesn't help this still needs more analysis.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Joey Ye from comment #4)
> -fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
The former is strange because it's the only pass that does sth that is
changed by the patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #4 from Joey Ye ---
-fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I can't really interpret the asm differences but it seems we need more
registers?
Forwprop applies the association transform (those that fold-const.c already
does when presented with large enough GENERIC tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #2 from Joey Ye ---
Created attachment 32131
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32131&action=edit
The function that causes the regression
Attached Proc_8 from dhrystone, header file and good/bad.s
It is the only func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo
