https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83320
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Err, turned out a stupid mistake using new/free...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83320
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
--- Comment #11 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Dec 7 18:03:53 2017
New Revision: 255472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255472=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81303
* Makefile.in (gimple-loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> The #c5 approach sounds better to me, we can have memsets in the IL even
> from the user, so would be nice if we handled those in the dr analys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83114
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Nov 15 16:20:21 2017
New Revision: 254778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254778=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82726
PR tree-optimization/70754
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
--- Comment #19 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Nov 15 16:20:21 2017
New Revision: 254778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254778=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82726
PR tree-optimization/70754
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
--- Comment #18 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Nov 15 16:16:49 2017
New Revision: 254777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254777=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82726
Revert
2017-01-23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Nov 15 16:16:49 2017
New Revision: 254777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254777=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82726
Revert
2017-01-23 Bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79663
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Nov 15 16:16:49 2017
New Revision: 254777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254777=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82726
Revert
2017-01-23 Bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Predcom uses below comparison function to make sure references in chain are
sorted in lexicographic order. That is, inter-iteration deps are sorted in
iteration order; intra-iteration deps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #9)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> > I think -fno-strict-overflow/-fwrapv should use the old behavior.
> > The kernel real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> I think -fno-strict-overflow/-fwrapv should use the old behavior.
> The kernel really needs a flag to control pointer wrapping.
Wel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> > Well, one decision needs to be made is whether such bound information should
> > be covered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, one decision needs to be made is whether such bound information should be
covered by -faggressive-loop-optimizations. We already did this for undefined
behavior of sign type and array bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
Given below fortran code:
subroutine test (res1, res2)
integeri, j
real*8 a(100) , b(100) , c(100) , d(100)
common /area/ a, b, c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I will investigate the issue. It look like related to the pcom re-association
stuff. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I didn't go through all the differences, but below is an example of using
wrapping behavior for pointers:
int vsnprintf(char *buf, size_t size, const char *fmt, va_list args)
{
unsigned long long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> I would not revert without a testcase. Give me a few hours...
Thanks very much for helping!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for the breakage.
As I mentioned when committing the patch, it's kind of an experiment and we can
always revert it. I can revert it now, but a test case for further
investigation would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82574
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I suppose loop distribution inserted a version copy turning this into a
> non-perfect nest for outer loops and thus disabling autopar there.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82574
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:56:15 2017
New Revision: 253857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253857=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82574
* tree-loop-distribution.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82574
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82472
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82479
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And this should be considered along with PR36041 which is still an open issue?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82479
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82472
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Oct 11 13:04:05 2017
New Revision: 253641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253641=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82472
* tree-loop-distribution.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So with necessary IV candidates added, current cost computation has tie between
address candidate and counting down candidate. The tie is introduced because
counting down candidate requires
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > > Indeed. But when the body is:
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Indeed. But when the body is:
> sum += a[size - 1 - i];
> while base 128U with step -1U is considered, it isn't found as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, which target is this? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81832
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82163
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82472
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82369
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, with expansion, IVOPTs can find address type uses as:
Group 0:
Type: ADDRESS
Use 0.0:
At stmt:_25 = *_6;
At pos: *_6
IV struct:
Type: const __m128i_u * {ref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82369
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Given IR dump before IVOPTs:
[15.00%] [count: INV]:
_1 = dst_12(D) + bytes_13(D);
end_dst_14 = (uintptr_t) _1;
srcu_16 = (uintptr_t) src_15(D);
dstu_17 = (uintptr_t) dst_12(D);
_2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82163
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Sep 25 17:32:36 2017
New Revision: 253161
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253161=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82163
* tree-ssa-loop-manip.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82271
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
--- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #15)
> Is this still being considered for backporting?
sorry for letting this slip away. For backport, patch for PR79663 is also
needed., it fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Don't know transformation done by graphite. In this case, graphite0 has an
additional function dump:
;; Function at._loopfn.1 (at._loopfn.1, funcdef_no=2, decl_uid=1951,
cgraph_uid=1, symbol_order
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82163
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Aug 24 15:38:39 2017
New Revision: 251337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251337=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81913
* tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Started with r249778.
Looks like overflow handling. Thanks for bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81913
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81832
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Aug 16 15:02:03 2017
New Revision: 251123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251123=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81832
* tree-ssa-loop-ch.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81832
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81799
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Aug 14 11:46:03 2017
New Revision: 251088
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251088=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81799
* tree-loop-distribution.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like both x86_64(with -mavx2) and AArch64 translate u== into signaling
comparison instructions when vectorization.
x86_64 translates into "*avx_maskcmpv4df3_comm" thus:
vcmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81228
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 81843 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81843
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81799
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, but it can't be backported to 7 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So shall we defer this PR to GCC 8 then (i.e. [8 Regression] and Target
> Milestone: 8.0? Richard, are you ok with that?
With ivopt rewriting,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53090
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Aug 8 11:32:05 2017
New Revision: 250950
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250950=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81744
* tree-predcom.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81627
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81620
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81408
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80815
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> > So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain:
> > tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain:
tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_executions (loop);
//...
niters = copy_node (niters);
niters = force_gimple_operand (niters, , true, NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80815
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
vect_perm added for the the test case. It should be bypassed now on
sparc-sun-solaris2.12?
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41889
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41889=edit
compressed preprocessed c code
Hi,
With r250
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64,x86_64
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
According to thread https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00583.html
it's still not clear if LTGT should be quite or singaling, but inconsistent
behavior seems not correct here.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Given below test from Richard S,
#include
double x[16], y[16];
int res[16];
int
main (void)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 16;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Confirmed that
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "Ltb" } } */
>
> is missing after the revision. Can you amker please tell m
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The test failed on aarch64-none-elf, aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
aarch64_be-none-elf,
looks like because of:
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81627
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Aug 1 09:20:08 2017
New Revision: 250764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250764=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81627
* tree-predcom.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81620
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Aug 1 09:17:29 2017
New Revision: 250763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250763=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81620
* tree-predcom.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81620
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81637
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81627
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Jul 28 11:25:08 2017
New Revision: 250658
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250658=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline r250496
2017-07-25 Bin Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Jul 28 11:13:45 2017
New Revision: 250657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250657=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline r250496
2017-07-25 Bin Cheng
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Confirmed. This is sort of final value replacement (but not SCEV based).
Hmm, it could be SCEV ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81549
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. This is sort of final value replacement (but not SCEV based).
Hi, do we have dedicated pass responsible for this transformation? Thanks.
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Given below test:
int a[1], b[1], c[1];
int f(void)
{
int i, n = 100;
int t0 = a[0];
int t1 = a[1];
for (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Fixed on trunk I suppose.
Yes, I will wait then backport it to 6/7 next Monday if no regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81228
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81388
--- Comment #11 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Backport to gcc-7-branch with test cases slightly adjusted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81388
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jul 25 08:56:26 2017
New Revision: 250497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250497=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from 2017-07-20 trunk r250384.
PR tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jul 25 08:31:22 2017
New Revision: 250496
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250496=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/81414
* config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65068
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81374
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Guess this reveals a miss-optimization in graphite. Pending this issue for now
till it's fully understood.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So there are couple of concerns here.
A) I moved iv_canon pass after loop split so that new loop generated can be
completely unrolled if niter is known and small. As a result, we don't need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81388
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Jul 20 12:02:19 2017
New Revision: 250384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250384=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81388
Revert r238585:
2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81369
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80653
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oh I just applied patch changing warning into missed optimization message, but
yes the issue still exist using -fopt-info-loop-missed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81388
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My change @r238585 assumed that "pointer + 2 < pointer" must be folded before
calling to number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne. This is not true when pointer_plus
can overflow. I will look f
201 - 300 of 827 matches
Mail list logo
