https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121957
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
The problem is that the `MEM_EXPR` information is wrong already at expand time.
The RTL for bb 8 in expand is:
```
52: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 8
53: r117:DI=r96:DI-0x100 ; r117 = r96 - 256
54: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121989
Bug ID: 121989
Summary: [14/15/16 Regression] arm: Unrecognizable insn ICE
with __fp16 loop at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121957
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Further reduced:
typedef long __attribute__((vector_size(16 * sizeof(long v16di;
int main() {
v16di v = {};
asm goto("" : : : : L1);
L2:
asm goto("" : : : : L1);
L0:
asm goto("" : : : : L2);
v =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121957
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] AArch64: |[15/16 Regression] AArch64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121957
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
typedef long __attribute__((vector_size(16 * sizeof(long v16di_s;
typedef long __attribute__((vector_size(32 * sizeof(long v32di_s;
int main() {
v16di_s
vcmp = {},
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121957
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121772
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14/15/16 Regression]|[13/14/15 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121772
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121857
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||internal-improvement,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121857
Bug ID: 121857
Summary: pair-fusion should replace the core ldp/stp peepholes
on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114892
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-09-08
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121772
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Here's a fully-preprocessed reduced testcase; not for the testsuite, but just
to enable debugging with a cc1 cross:
typedef __Int16x4_t int16x4_t;
typedef __Int16x8_t int16x8_t;
short f(int16x4_t va) {
int1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121772
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Simplified testcase:
#include
int16_t f(int16x4_t b) {
return vaddvq_s16(vcombine_s16(b, vdup_n_s16 (0)));
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121772
Bug ID: 121772
Summary: [13/14/15/16 Regression] aarch64: ICE (invalid gimple)
with vcombine since r13-1836-g8a1e05b7618fed
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121749
Bug ID: 121749
Summary: [14/15/16 Regression] aarch64: Invalid assembly with
vqshrn intrinsic since r14-1886-gd20b2ad845876e
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121604
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Jennifer Schmitz from comment #2)
> Thanks for catching this.
> Both svbrka and svbrkb produce wrong code with _m predication. Same for
> svpmov_lane with _m and a pfalse predicate.
> The problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121604
--- Comment #1 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is a possibly-related case:
#include
svuint64_t f(svuint64_t zd, svbool_t p) {
return svpmov_lane_u64_m(svdup_u64(~0UL), svpfalse(), 1);
}
with -O2 -march=armv8.2-a+sve2p1 on trunk this gives:
f:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121599
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Jennifer Schmitz from comment #2)
> I can confirm the ICE. Thanks for the report.
> However, I think that g5289540ed58e42ae66255e31f22afe4ca0a6e15e only
> revealed a previously existing problem by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121604
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121604
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jschmitz at gcc dot gnu.org
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121604
Bug ID: 121604
Summary: [15/16 Regression] Wrong folding of svbrkb intrinsic
since r15-5957-g5289540ed58e42
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121599
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121602
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121602
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jschmitz at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121602
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||15.2.0, 16.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121602
Bug ID: 121602
Summary: [15/16 Regression] ICE (verify_gimple failed): type
mismatch in 'vec_cond_expr' with SVE intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121599
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jschmitz at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121599
Bug ID: 121599
Summary: [15/16 Regression] ICE (unrecognizable insn) with SVE2
saturating add intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121315
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
So if I artificially increase the cost of the ADDRESS_REG_REG case by 1 in
aarch64_address_cost, then we get the desired codegen:
.L3:
ldp q31, q30, [x2], 32
rev32 v31.16b, v31.16b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121315
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Yes, it looks to be faster using post-increment LDP/STP indeed. I think it
would be difficult to undo in pair-fusion, perhaps best to handle this earlier
(I guess in ivopts).
Generally pair-fusion requires a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121315
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Here is a reduced testcase (compile with -O3 -mcpu=neoverse-v2):
void copyReverseGeneric(int *dst, int *src) {
for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i)
dst[i] = __builtin_bswap32(src[i]);
}
of course using LDP/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
--- Comment #12 from Alex Coplan ---
Fixed on trunk, will backport to 15 after a week or so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
--- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
I'm now going to be away until Mon 4th August, so won't be able to post the
re-spun patches until then (although they are ready to go and have passed
testing).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121091
Bug ID: 121091
Summary: ICE in tree_to_uhwi, at tree.cc:6660 with SVE switch
choosing predicate values
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
--- Comment #7 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Spencer Abson from comment #6)
> > The insn is recognised if +fp8dot4 is added, so I suspect the gating of
> > this insn is also wrong in the backend.
>
> Yeah, I suspect the issue is that:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121027
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Interestingly the codegen seems to have regressed significantly after that
change, too. We used to get:
foo:
mov z2.h, #0
uzp1z0.h, z0.h, z1.h
zip2z0.h, z2.h, z0.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121027
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
For completeness, the above testcase started ICEing with
r14-3571-gcaa7a99a052929d5970677c5b639e1fa5166e334, though I suspect the
problem can be reproduced before that revision with an alternative testcase.
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121027
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121027
Bug ID: 121027
Summary: [14 Regression] ICE with BF16 and SVE at -O2
-msve-vector-bits=256
Product: gcc
Version: 14.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
I also get an unrecognisable insn ICE when compiling a variant of this testcase
where the FPMR has a compile-time unknown value:
$ cat t.c
#pragma GCC aarch64 "arm_sve.h"
svfloat16_t foo(svfloat16_t a, svmflo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118567
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Any progress on this?
Patch waiting for approval here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/676539.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120892
Bug ID: 120892
Summary: Missed unrolling at -O3 due to split-paths
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120718
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] ICE |ICE (unrecognizable insn)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120718
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15/16 Regression] ICE |[15/16 Regression] ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120718
Bug ID: 120718
Summary: [15/16 Regression] ICE (unrecognizable insn) with SVE
intrinsics and C++ class
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120707
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120357
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120231
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
I suppose that example boils down to whether code like:
_Bool f(_Float16 a) {
return a * a >= 0;
}
_Bool g(float a) {
return a * a >= 0;
}
can be optimised to return true. We currently do it with -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120357
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
This version ICEs with just -O3 on AArch64 (no longer needs -fwhole-program),
and fixes the -Woverflow warning:
char a;
void b(int d, int o, unsigned long long t[][22], int u[]) {
for (int v = 0; v < d + 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120357
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[15/16 Regression] RI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Created attachment 61468
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61468&action=edit
reduced testcase
Attached is a reduced testcase with optabs.ii down to 458 lines and optabs.gcda
reduced to 15,2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120307
Bug ID: 120307
Summary: ICE in combine_with_ipa_count_within, at
profile-count.cc:410 during aarch64 -O3
profiledbootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120231
Bug ID: 120231
Summary: GCC fails to notice that (double)u64 is non-negative
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120200
Bug ID: 120200
Summary: [16 Regression] profiledbootstrap broken on
x86_64-linux with -Wstringop-overflow in
i386-expand.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120065
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
FWIW, the following testcase seems to be more representative of the original
problem I saw when looking at gcc.c-torture/execute/20060420-1.c:
$ cat t2.c
void foo(float *dst, float *src)
{
int j;
for (j =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120065
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Thanks for the analysis. I think this shows that the testcase I gave above was
overly-reduced. I should have mentioned in the initial report that this code
came from gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20060
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120065
Bug ID: 120065
Summary: [14/15/16 Regression] profile info corrupted by dom2
Product: gcc
Version: 16.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119393
--- Comment #6 from Alex Coplan ---
Alright, so after some digging through the dumps I realised that adding
-fno-early-inlining is enough to get a non-LTO testcase. So the following
testcase reproduces the different codegen before/after the abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119610
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|aarch64: Wrong unwind info |aarch64: Wrong unwind info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119610
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119610
Bug ID: 119610
Summary: aarch64: Wrong unwind info with
-fstack-clash-protection -fstack-protector-strong
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119580
Bug ID: 119580
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in
comp_template_args, at cp/pt.cc:9595
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] |[12/13 Regression] aarch64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114991
--- Comment #9 from Alex Coplan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Is this now fixed on trunk?
No, not really. The codegen at -O2 on trunk is:
f:
stp x29, x30, [sp, -144]!
mov x29, sp
add x0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119444
Bug ID: 119444
Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized warnings with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119393
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119393
Bug ID: 119393
Summary: [15 Regression] Worse vectorization of imagick_r hot
loop on aarch64 since r15-5024-g2a2e6784074e1f
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119351
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
I will take a look and try to reproduce/reduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116564
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119189
Bug ID: 119189
Summary: [15 Regression] Code quality regressions on aarch64
since ext-dce change r15-7915-g4ed07a11ee2845
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114492
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org|acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
--- Comment #2 from Alex Coplan ---
A bisect points to r10-917-g3b47da42de621c6c3bf7d2f9245df989aa7eb5a1 :
commit 3b47da42de621c6c3bf7d2f9245df989aa7eb5a1
Author: Martin Jambor
Date: Thu Jun 6 17:31:20 2019
Make SRA re-construct orginal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118924
Bug ID: 118924
Summary: Wrong code leading to uninitialized accesses on
aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118567
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118320
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan ---
Sorry, I'm now away until Tuesday 11th Feb so likely won't be able to look at
this before then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103680
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118111
Bug ID: 118111
Summary: profile_estimate builds inconsistent profile for
gcc.dg/pr109417.c
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117790
Bug ID: 117790
Summary: Early break vectorization corrupts profile info
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117476
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117449
Bug ID: 117449
Summary: [15 Regression] ICE in gen_reg_rtx on aarch64 via
aarch64_emit_opt_vec_rotate
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #8 from Alex Coplan ---
Should be fixed everywhere, I'll leave this open for a bit until we get
confirmation that this fixes the Debian package build with GCC 14, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 Regression] Wrong|[14 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
--- Comment #5 from Alex Coplan ---
Ah, so the problem seems to be that we're scanning for "Unrolled loop 3 times"
appearing exactly once in the dump, but on powerpc it appears twice; that is
because the loop in main gets unrolled too (presumabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116683
--- Comment #3 from Alex Coplan ---
Sorry for the delay in looking into this.
So it looks like the unrolling works as expected without LTO, at least I see:
;; Unrolled loop 3 times, constant # of iterations 26 insns
in the dump with a powerpc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
--- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan ---
Testing a fix for the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116783
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
1 - 100 of 700 matches
Mail list logo
