https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96837
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96827
--- Comment #8 from Joel Hutton ---
I'm working on this.
I believe this may have been introduced by my earlier SLP vector constructor
patch.(commit 10d1592)
What I believe to be the relevant section:
+ else if (constructor)
+{
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85804
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92922
--- Comment #2 from Joel Hutton ---
This was fixed by Richard Sandiford's patch.
commit fb15e2bab5267213b8706fa6a29eeef94f62a524
Author: Richard Sandiford
Date: Mon Jan 20 19:29:25 2020 +
aarch64: Fix SVE ACLE handling of SImode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92922
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93135
Bug 93135 depends on bug 93221, which changed state.
Bug 93221 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE maximum number of generated reload insns
per insn achieved (90) on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93303
Bug 93303 depends on bug 93221, which changed state.
Bug 93221 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE maximum number of generated reload insns
per insn achieved (90) on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
--- Comment #6 from Joel Hutton ---
The regression seems to be introduced by this commit:
commit 11b8091fb33c894cea20702d3e85389723987910
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: Wed Dec 18 23:03:23 2019 +
* ira.c (ira): Use simple LRA algorithm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
--- Comment #5 from Joel Hutton ---
There's some problem with inserting an OI before an OI, which requires an OI
before it etc.
18: r98:OI=r99:OI
REG_DEAD r97:V4SI
Inserting insn reload before:
19: r99:OI=r97:V4SI#0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93221
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #13 from Joel Hutton ---
This appears to no longer be failing in the latest 'gcc-testresults' can this
be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #11 from Joel Hutton ---
I see, I think you're right. I was able to replicate the failure when running
the whole 'vect' testsuite. I tried the following change:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #9 from Joel Hutton ---
Weird, I tested on gcc202.
% uname -a
Linux gcc202 4.19.0-5-sparc64-smp #1 SMP Debian 4.19.37-6 (2019-07-18) sparc64
GNU/Linux
% cat gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum
Test run by joelh on Tue Nov 26 17:22:27 2019
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #6 from Joel Hutton ---
This should be fixed with Richard Sandifords changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
--- Comment #11 from Joel Hutton ---
Should be fixed on trunk by r277784
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
--- Comment #10 from Joel Hutton ---
Should be fixed on trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #4 from Joel Hutton ---
Hi Rainer
I set up an account with cfarm, and tested on gcc202, the test fails because on
SPARC, no constructor is generated, the for whatever reason (see below) making
the test not really applicable. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #2 from Joel Hutton ---
As this fails when it was introduced, and I don't have a SPARC machine to test
on, I suggest making this XFAIL on sparc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #1 from Joel Hutton ---
I'm looking into this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92366
--- Comment #2 from Joel Hutton ---
I'm looking into this. The testcase triggered a case with a constructor with a
large number of elements (at least on aarch64).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com
--- Comment #8
24 matches
Mail list logo
