https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89774
--- Comment #7 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
Looks good, which options did you use?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89774
--- Comment #5 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
I did checkt the output without --fsingle-precision-constant
Is this only enabled via -fsingle-precision-constant or at any optimization
level?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89774
Marius Messerschmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89774
Marius Messerschmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Marius
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marius.messerschmidt at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
It would be helpful if there was a flag (e.g. -fsingle-precision-literals) that
would cause gcc to treat floating point literals (e.g. 0.5 or 0.25 ...) in the
source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #12 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
I think this messages look really good!
I believe that this contains everything required to actually work on improving
automatic unswitching, thank you very much!
Do you think that there is a chance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #9 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
Created attachment 45397
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45397=edit
Basic testcase
As there where some more issues in the example I provided, I added it as an
attachment. Now it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #8 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
Oh minor error from my side, the "BAD LINE" should of course be above the
if/return block otherwise it would work just fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #7 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
Thanks a lot for working on this!
A simple example would be the following:
-- CODE ---
int calc(int x, int y, int *flag)
{
if(flag > 5)
return x + y;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #3 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
Sorry but I do not fully understand what you mean. Do you suggest using
different command line arguments?
So far I tried:
-fdump-tree-all
-fdump-tree-unswitch
and
-fopt-info-all-optall
But none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763
--- Comment #2 from Marius Messerschmidt ---
Sorry but I do not fully understand what you mean. Do you suggest using
different command line arguments?
So far I tried:
-fdump-tree-all
-fdump-tree-unswitch
and
-fopt-info-all-optall
But none
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marius.messerschmidt at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I work on a project where we heavily rely on the loop-unswitching feature of
GCC (-funswitch-loops). I started working with the log generated by
-fdump
12 matches
Mail list logo
