https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113575
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113790
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113790
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114000
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114000
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100523
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Jakub's patch on the trunk.
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed by Greg's patch on the trunk. No current plans to backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113976
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
What does the standard say about changing const objects?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 113570, which changed state.
Bug 113570 Summary: RISC-V: SPEC2017 549 fotonik3d miscompilation in autovec
VLS 256 build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113570
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113570
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113570
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
See pr84201 for more details as well as
https://www.spec.org/cpu2017/Docs/benchmarks/549.fotonik3d_r.html
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
sh3-linux-gnu or sh3eb-linux-gnu is showing a code generation regression after
the changes for pr111267.
test_01 with -O1
|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk. No plans to backport.
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Should be fixed on the trunk. No plans to backport.
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk. No plans to backport.
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk. No plans to backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113399
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just something that was missed when this option was changed from target
dependent to target independent. It definitely should not be a target option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112398
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I don't think we need to do any significant bit tracking to optimize the
original neg8 test. I think we can be handled entirely within the simplify-rtx
framework.I've got a junior engineer that's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112398
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2023-11-05 00:00:00 |2024-01-13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111378
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Whether or not this is an optimization or a pessimization is dependent on the
target -- some targets can express the constant trivially in a branch
conditions, others can not. Some targets have barrel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113167
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So far that's the only fallout I've seen on the embedded targets.
The qemu emulated natives aren't running as I've got some kind of network
problem here and the workers are going offline after a few hours
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Many targets are now seeing this failure:
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-26.c scan-tree-dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110201
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
|RESOLVED
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk. No plans to backport.
||2023-12-04
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Also seeing on microblaze-linux.
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This patch:
commit 6bf66276e3e41d5d92f7b7260e98b6a111653805
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Wed Nov 22 11:10:41 2023 +0100
tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112674
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And possibly more interesting than the compare-debug failure is this patch
seems to be causing Wstringop-overflow-17 to fail on multiple targets,
including c6x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112530
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112481
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 112530 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
mal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This change:
commit a5922427c29fad177251d89cc946d1c5bfc135eb
Author: Andrew Stubbs
Date: Fri Oct 20 16:26:51 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112481
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112478
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #43 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I would expect allowing larger offsets before reload to be a significant
problem.
The core issue is integer memory operations allow 14 bits while FP only allows
5. During reloading we don't know if any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This failure means the stage1 and stage2 compilers generated different code for
the same input.
So when I need to debug this I usually start by first getting that source code.
Based in the title of this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112497
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #41 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I would agree. In fact,the whole point of the f-m-o pass is to bring those
immediates into the memory reference. It'd be really useful to know why that
isn't happening.
The only thing I can think of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #31 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
IIRC r21 is call-clobbered. So I guess the question turns into what was the
sequence before f-m-o got involved -- was it assuming r21 would be preserved,
or did f-m-o make r21 live across the call?
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This change:
commit 3f176e1adc6bc9cc2c21222d776b51d9f43cb66b (HEAD)
Author: Tamar Christina
Date: Thu Nov 9 13:59:39 2023 +
middle-end: optimize
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Currently the costing of zicond always returns COSTS_N_INSNS (1) which can be
inaccurate. I see two primary issues that need to be fixed.
First, for conditions which are not equality
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #26 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
As a compiler junkie, I tend to think compiler first until I can prove it
otherwise. I wouldn't get too hung up on aliasing issues and such at this
point.
Do we already have a dump for the key function?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
f-m-o runs post-allocation, so the scope of where it's behavior can change
things is narrower. So testing with -fno-schedule-insns isn't going to be
useful, but -fno-schedule-insns2 might.
I'm a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112415
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Do we have assembly code around the faulting point (x/20i $pc) and a register
dump (i r)? The biggest concern I'd have with f-m-o on the PA would be the
implicit segment selection that happens on the base
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111311
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
As Andrew said, if there's a test that depends on behavior of -INT_MIN, then
the test needs to be fixed. That's undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109035
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No spills on rv64 either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104387
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112320
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 56480
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56480=edit
Testcase for fr30-elf -Os -g
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-01
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I've bisected a failure on fr30-elf to the same commit. The failure mode is
different, but given it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112298
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||h8300
Priority|P3
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
long long foo(long long x) { return x << 1; }
Highlights several code inefficiencies WRT DImode values on the H8.
I would expect that defining a reasonable adddi3 an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107885
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk now.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This change:
commit 6decda1a35be5764101987c210b5693a0d914e58
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Thu Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111777
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
|RESOLVED
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This should be fixed on the trunk now. No plans to backport to the release
branches.
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111384
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-07
Ever confirmed|0
|RESOLVED
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
These code generation inefficiences have been fixed. I didn't bisect, but I
would hazard a guess it was Jivan's work on exposing the widening nature of the
32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106271
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64215
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111670
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target|
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The H8/SX port can create sequences like
(set (mem (autoinc (reg sp)) (reg_sp))
Here autoinc is PRE_DECEMENT or PRE_INCREMENT addressing modes.
Which is invalid RTL.
I believe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111467
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82666
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77576
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105832
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Looks viable to me. Are you thinking match.pd?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110559
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
commit fe48f2651334bc4d96b6df6b2bb6b29fcb732a83
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Fri Jun 9 09:31:14 2023 +0200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110423
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110308
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Right. It's fairly common with fold-mem-offsets to end up rewriting the
address arithmetic such that we'll have an sp->gpr copy of some sort in the IL.
We'd really like to be able to cprop that copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110201
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, the tests aren't great. They'll be better shortly. They'll test
non-constant arguments and out-of-range constants, expecting a suitable
diagnostic. They'll also test the extrema of valid constants.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110201
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
||2023-06-17
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Note that Pan can cherry pick it into gcc-13. Typically folks wait a week or
so after the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
risc-v doesn't have any special instructions to implement add-with-carry or
subtract-with-borrow. Depending on who you talk do, it's either a feature or a
mis-design.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110218
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So what I think was happening was that we would sink past a bunch of
conditionals that were never going to be true thinking that we were moving to a
deeper control nest. So the idea was to use the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110163
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It is a regression for rv64. So probably P4 would be most appropriate.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Comparing against a constant string is expanded by inline_string_cmp and on
some targets the generated code
||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Should be fixed on the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109592
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 55218
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55218=edit
(Incomplete) Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108041
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Patch was for a different problem. Sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109592
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Weird, I don't see the attachment either. I'll extract & upload it again.
WRT costing. fwprop and combine will both query the target rtx costs and will
reject when the target costing model indicates the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108041
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 55185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55185=edit
(Incomplete) Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109592
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Attached is what I cobbled together. It doesn't use magic numbers. But it
doesn't yet handle zero extensions in the simplify-rtx code. But I think it
shows the overall direction fairly well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106888
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This patch:
commit cc0e22b3f25d4b2a326322bce711179c02377e6c
Author: Richard Biener
Date: Fri May 12 13:43:27 2023 +0200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109592
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I would still rather not introduce special cases for SUBREGs if we can avoid
it. I think the question remains whether or not patching simplify-rtx's
canonicalize_shift is sufficient to fix this problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109777
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109776
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks. That took care of the xstormy16 issues.
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This change:
commit 21e2ef2dc25de318de29ec32d5390350c6717c6a (refs/bisect/bad)
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Tue May 2 00:10:46
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
pr81192 is failing on some targets (xstormy16-elf for example) after this
change:
commit
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: law at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
arc-elf target.
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/predcom-2.c scan-tree-dump-times pcom "Unrolling 2
times." 2
Bisect
||2023-04-29
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Similar failures on arc-elf:
arc-sim: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr36691.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109549
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |s390
Summary|[14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Coming back to this.
WRT extension elimination. I've been pondering if we want a late pass to do a
bit of this that can't be handled by REE.
So let's take the case of a Zbs instruction operating on a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109592
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
If we need to handle subregs here, I would suggest something like this
if (SUBREG_P (XEXP (op0, 0))
&& subreg_lowpart_p (op0)
... other tests ...
That way we know we're extracting the low word of
401 - 500 of 1196 matches
Mail list logo
