[Bug target/81504] [7/8 Regression] gcc-7 regression: vec_st in loop misoptimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- Correction, the reconstruction happens *prior* to swap optimization so the latter can't make the patterns unrecognizable.

[Bug target/81504] [7/8 Regression] gcc-7 regression: vec_st in loop misoptimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- OK, so the problem is in the swaps pass. It's just that the add of 16 is correctly placed in every prior optimization pass following ivopts, which has shifted it around in the usual fashion. Prior to swap

[Bug target/81504] [7/8 Regression] gcc-7 regression: vec_st in loop misoptimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- I don't think this has anything to do with the swaps pass. I see the same wrong code generation with -mno-optimize-swaps. I'll continue to investigate.

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Aug 22 17:32:26 2017 New Revision: 251286 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251286=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-22 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01145.html

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- Just for the record, the problem disappears with r250523, in which a change to reassociation of multiplication in match.pd causes the SLSR opportunities to disappear. So the SLSR problem has just gone

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- With a cross it doesn't reproduce for current trunk (r251128) either, but does reproduce with r250217 as originally reported. So I can look at that. Going to check what made the problem go away also...

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le on current trunk. I'll try a cross.

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 16 14:13:27 2017 New Revision: 251122 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251122=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 16 14:11:26 2017 New Revision: 251121 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251121=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 16 14:09:15 2017 New Revision: 251120 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251120=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug target/79845] rs6000: make code in rs6000.c more i18n-friendly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79845 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/79845] rs6000: make code in rs6000.c more i18n-friendly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79845 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Aug 14 14:26:33 2017 New Revision: 251092 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251092=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-14 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug target/81572] New: gcc-7 regression: unnecessary vector regmove on compare

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: zoltan at hidvegi dot com CC: segher at gcc dot gnu.org, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu CC

[Bug target/79845] rs6000: make code in rs6000.c more i18n-friendly

||2017-08-10 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |8.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- Working on a patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt --- Proposed patch awaiting approval: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00347.html

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- Fixed on trunk so far, and verified that a modified backport fixes the limited range on 5.4 where the provided test case fails. Backports to follow in about a week after burn-in.

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Aug 8 12:52:22 2017 New Revision: 250955 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250955=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-08 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug middle-end/81318] [8 regression] ICE in to_reg_br_prob_base, at profile-count.h:189

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt --- Created attachment 41899 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41899=edit Patch under test This is the patch I'm currently looking at. I am unhappy at having to use a tree to get maxval, but

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > I had in mind something like > wi::eq_p (wi::ext (w, TYPE_PRECISION (type), TYPE_SIGN (type)), w) > or so. Ah, good, thank you.

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > The TREE_INT_CST_LOW part looks suspicious. Also, wide-int.h should provide > enough infrastructure so that you should be able to do everything on > wide-int,

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- This is overkill, it has some test case fallout. Will have to look a bit deeper.

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Patch under test that fixes this case: Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c === ---

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++, > in C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE. > Anyway,

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- I went spelunking and found that the ARRAY_TYPE change was added here: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=237077. Looks like a C++ implementation detail.

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- I should clarify that Richard reviewed the VEC_LD / VEC_ST code chunks. The other pieces predate me. The stylistic issues were copied from another place at the time and I missed those, sorry about that...

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- This code was reviewed and approved by Richard back when it was first written. It's been some time since this was written, so I don't recall the origin of the array type, but it was definitely necessary.

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- Created attachment 41874 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41874=edit Patch under test

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- Do you see the same behavior with "vec_ld (1, 2);" ?

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- OK, I've now confirmed this is the problem. I have a rough patch for trunk, and backporting it to GCC 5 r236439 verifies that this fixes it. Still verifying bootstrap/regression on trunk, and need to do

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- This is likely the same as another problem that recently came up (not yet filed as the source is sensitive). SLSR is sensitive to addresses of PHI instructions remaining the same throughout the pass, but

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Jul 25 19:44:10 2017 New Revision: 250544 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250544=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Jul 25 19:42:36 2017 New Revision: 250543 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250543=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Jul 25 19:40:50 2017 New Revision: 250542 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250542=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-07-25 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- Try -fno-slsr.

[Bug target/80695] gratuitous use of stxvx to store multiple pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Sun Jul 23 15:32:37 2017 New Revision: 250461 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250461=gcc=rev Log: 2017-07-23 Bill Schmidt PR target/80695

[Bug target/81504] [7/8 Regression] gcc-7 regression: vec_st in loop misoptimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, |

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- Hm, the symptom looks very much like another issue I've been looking at on trunk. There may be an issue with the statement->candidate mapping hash table that's responsible for both. It appears to be a

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Carl, please revert the patch until you have time to investigate. This will cause havoc every time we vectorize with these patterns.

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le. I'll have to build a cross.

[Bug libgomp/81386] [8 regression] libgomp.fortran/appendix-a/a.16.1.f90 fails starting with 249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81386 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- The code is being vectorized in the "fails" dump and not being vectorized in the "works" dump. This cannot be due to r249424, which does gimple folding on some Power-specific built-ins, for this is a generic

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Jul 17 19:12:11 2017 New Revision: 250284 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250284=gcc=rev Log: 2017-07-17 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- Right, sorry about the ubsan dependency screwup. I'll move the test case later today.

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.0 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Fri Jul 14 18:06:45 2017 New Revision: 250212 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250212=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-07-14 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug target/81317] builtin_vec_ld fails for powerpc with altivec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/81317] builtin_vec_ld fails for powerpc with altivec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/81348] PowerPC64: Code built with -mcpu=power9 hits SEGV in RTL split2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81348 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- This case comes up when we're going to replace a NEGATE_EXPR with a PLUS_EXPR or MINUS_EXPR. This is another case of an unprofitable replacement that should be avoided anyway. So I think the following fix

[Bug tree-optimization/81162] [8 Regression] UBSAN switch triggers incorrect optimization in SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81162 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/81245] [8 Regression] ICE building calculix with -Ofast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81245 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu |

[Bug bootstrap/81216] [8 Regression] bootstrap failed on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81216 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/81216] [8 Regression] bootstrap failed on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81216 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/71815] SLSR misses several PHI candidate cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71815 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/71815] SLSR misses several PHI candidate cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71815 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Jun 26 14:19:33 2017 New Revision: 249649 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249649=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-06-26 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug target/81158] [8 regression] Many test case failures starting with r249424

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81158 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- I expect this is probably due to the changes to rs6000_gimple_fold_builtin.

[Bug tree-optimization/71815] SLSR misses several PHI candidate cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71815 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- I re-ran benchmarks today and the results that I saw before are no longer present. The patch is neutral with regard to SPEC cpu2006 performance on ppc64le. So I'll plan to have this patch reviewed.

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #34 from Bill Schmidt --- Martin, thanks! I can confirm that building and testing Go on ppc64le works again.

[Bug target/80982] gcc.target/powerpc/builtins-3-runnable.c fails starting with its introduction in r248846

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80982 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- Sorry, that was intended to be a PM...

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt --- That is the usual approach, and there are already some predicates involving alignment. It's a matter of going through and figuring out which ones will do what's needed. I spent some tiresome weeks working

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- Well, I should be more careful -- the behavior you see is probably reasonable for these runtime tests, since the testing infrastructure isn't aware that you built for an older architecture on the POWER8 it

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to rdapp from comment #9) > > Therefore, whenever the vector tests are run on a power8 CPU, > TARGET_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_VSX = 1, no matter the --with-cpu. This would > also explain why I didn't

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt --- Sadly, no. This continues to be a problem on r248791.

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt --- Testing now...

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- The cost modeling doesn't explain failures on P6 and P7, I guess. For P8 we consider unaligned loads to be the same cost as aligned loads (this is a small lie because of boundary-crossing costs, but these

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247848

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|libgo appears to be |libgo appears to be

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- More headaches. I see the failure as part of "make GOTESTFLAGS=--keep net/check", as follows: $ head -c 1000 TEST.log --- FAIL: TestParseIP (20.94s) ip_test.go:47: ParseIP("127.0.1.2") = 127.0.1.2,

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- Thanks, Ian, I have the saved executable now.

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #5) > To reproduce: > make GOTESTFLAGS=--keep net/check > > My apologies if I omitted the "/check" before. Thanks! That helps. > > Yes, you have identified

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- And gotest is just a bash script, so "something that it invokes" is the problem...

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Looks like this arises from this code in libgo/Makefile.in: if $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/testsuite/gotest --goarch=$(GOARCH) --goos=$(GO\ OS) --basedir=$(srcdir) --srcdir=$(srcdir)/go/$(@D)

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- I've verified that this only happens with a bootstrapped compiler. A one-pass build does not produce the problem. The output from "cat net/check-testlog" for such a build is: PASS PASS: net Ian, I am not

[Bug target/72863] Powerpc64le: redundant swaps when using vec_vsx_ld/st

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72863 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Fri May 19 14:30:02 2017 New Revision: 248287 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248287=gcc=rev Log: 2017-05-19 Bill Schmidt Backport from

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build, wrong-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug other/80803] libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80803 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/80803] New: libgo appears to be miscompiled on powerpc64le since r247923

Priority: P3 Component: other Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Since r247923 was committed, I've been observing a strange problem when running the libgo testsuite. A very long numeric string (over 5 GB

[Bug tree-optimization/80457] vectorizable_condition does not update the vectorizer cost model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80457] vectorizable_condition does not update the vectorizer cost model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue May 16 20:18:05 2017 New Revision: 248130 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248130=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-05-16 James Greenhalgh Bill

[Bug target/80695] gratuitous use of stxvx to store multiple pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/80695] gratuitous use of stxvx to store multiple pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Thu May 11 20:16:02 2017 New Revision: 247928 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247928=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-05-11 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug testsuite/80694] [8 regression] test cases gcc.dg/vect/vect-44.c and vect-50.c fail starting with r247780

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/80694] [8 regression] test cases gcc.dg/vect/vect-44.c and vect-50.c fail starting with r247780

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2) > I think probably these tests failed before the fix, stopped failing with the > fix, and started failing again when the fix was reverted. So the revision > number

[Bug testsuite/80694] [8 regression] test cases gcc.dg/vect/vect-44.c and vect-50.c fail starting with r247780

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- I think probably these tests failed before the fix, stopped failing with the fix, and started failing again when the fix was reverted. So the revision number is a red herring -- we need to figure out when

[Bug target/80695] gratuitous use of stxvx to store multiple pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/80695] gratuitous use of stxvx to store multiple pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/80695] gratuitous use of stxvx to store multiple pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.2 |8.0

[Bug target/69868] vec_perm built-in is not handled by swap optimization on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69868 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon May 8 21:03:45 2017 New Revision: 247759 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247759=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-05-08 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/80457] vectorizable_condition does not update the vectorizer cost model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- OK, will do (probably next week after things hopefully unstack a bit). Thanks!

[Bug tree-optimization/80457] vectorizable_condition does not update the vectorizer cost model

Assignee|wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- Per https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00967.html, James Greenhalgh has a more comprehensive patch for this, so removing myself from the Assignee field and will await his

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >