https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61301
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
_3 = MEM[(const float *)this_1(D) + 4B];
_4 = MEM[(const float *)this_1(D)];
_5 = MEM[(const float *)this_1(D) + 12B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #31)
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
---
Can you run the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #34 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Ok, committed then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #22)
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
---
There is a patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Can you run the test manually under gdb and tell me what is the value for the
out variable in hex format?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #19)
I've now regtested that patch on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 (compared to a
bootstrap without java before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #20)
Maybe a better solution for sparc would be to add a switch for this pass and
disable it by default on sparc. What do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #22)
I'm giving both patches combined a try right now, though SPARC bootstrap
will take 7+ hours to complete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #25)
Ah, I see: write-after-approval maintainers do get bugzilla write
access, but your not according
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual alignment
the access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
I'd say
Index: tree-ssa-math-opts.c
===
--- tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #16)
unsigned int foo (unsigned short *x)
{
return x[0] 16 | x[1];
}
[...]
gets you
foo:
lduh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Sorry, I didn't realize it was preventing bootstrap. I have a small patch that
disable the optimization for STRICT_ALIGNMENT target but was reluctant to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
I have a working patch that also pass bootstrap. I'll do a bit more testing and
post it for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
I finally managed to find the root cause for the bootstrap failure with my
current fix. I shall be able to improve my fix and should hopefully be ready
tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Oh I think I see. When I wrote find_bswap_or_nop_load () I assumed that it
would only return in find_bswap_or_nop_1 as called in the GIMPLE_UNARY_RHS
case. It seems I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Sure, I'll push a patch for this as soon as I finish fixing the regressions
that poped up due to the change I made to the bswap pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
*facepalm*
Yes indeed. Does this qualify for an obvious fix as per commiting rules?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Indeed. I also noticed that the original bswap code would happily accept signed
ssa value and signed cast which can lead to disaster. I worked out a patch for
this issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
Citing myself:
On the GIMPLE level before expansion we have
+40 = Arr_2_Par_Ref_22(D) + (_41 + pretmp_20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #19)
On Thu, 15 May 2014, thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Hi Richard,
could you expand on what you said in comment #13? I don't see how reassoc could
help cse here. From what I understood, reassoc tries to group per rank
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60109
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Sorry for the late reply, I wasn't aware of this bug report until today.
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
This is an unresolvable problem.
If we made
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54733
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Created attachment 32297
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32297action=edit
Unpreprocessed testcase for incorrect bswap detection
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
Created attachment 32299
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32299action=edit
Fix_bswap_detection
See in attachment for the patch I wrote to fix the issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32299|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60454
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
I have posted the patch on gcc-patches mailing list. The discussion can be
followed from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00313.html.
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com
Created attachment 32296
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32296action=edit
Testcase for bswap incorrect detection
Optimization pass optimize_bswap in tree-ssa-math
32 matches
Mail list logo
