https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80846
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 41421
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41421=edit
WIP patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80822
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Nathan Weeks from comment #6)
> Created attachment 41417 [details]
> output from comment #4 code compiled with Intel 17.0.2
Could I ask you for output of additional:
for i in `seq 64`; do echo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80846
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(define_expand "3"
[(set (match_operand:VI_AVX2 0 "register_operand")
(plusminus:VI_AVX2
(match_operand:VI_AVX2 1 "vector_operand")
(match_operand:VI_AVX2 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80846
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80885
Bug ID: 80885
Summary: Do not use the opaque _mm256_cmp_ps to produce -1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80857
--- Comment #1 from sv_91 at inbox dot ru ---
A simpler example for demonstrates the problem
struct MyStruct {
int64_t value;
};
inline MyStruct operator+(const MyStruct , const MyStruct ) {
return MyStruct{first.value + second.value};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80875
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> 9810 && negate_expr_p (op0)
> 9811 && (tem = negate_expr (op1)) != op1
>
> should probaby use negate_expr_p (op1) to guard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80844
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe we can simply set loop->force_vectorize on the prologue / epilogue loops.
Hmm, seems to be generated before we have a CFG ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80842
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 26 07:19:00 2017
New Revision: 248482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248482=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-05-26 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #23 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80844
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 26 07:14:52 2017
New Revision: 248481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248481=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-05-26 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80881
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.2
Summary|[7.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80880
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(gdb) p debug_generic_expr (exp)
__builtin_ia32_bndret (0B)
And sinking does:
Sinking __bound_tmp.0_3 = __builtin_ia32_bndret (_2);
from bb 2 to bb 3
int* fn1.chkp() ()
{
__bounds_type __bound_tmp.0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80876
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80875
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
9810 && negate_expr_p (op0)
9811 && (tem = negate_expr (op1)) != op1
should probaby use negate_expr_p (op1) to guard this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80875
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo