http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39837
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.5 |4.4.7
---
--- Comment #17 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-13 17:13
---
As a point of clarification, I am not getting paid to care about this issue
either. :-) At this time I have no plans to continue working on it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39837
--- Comment #12 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-07-11 07:51 ---
I agree.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 11:40 ---
Does the prototype fix of http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36758#c21
help?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39837
--- Comment #14 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-11 17:47
---
Yes, it looks like the prototype fix for PR 36758 fixes the test case at the
top of this issue. The patch needs a little updating, though, and I can't say
I grok the changes to the surrounding code sufficiently
--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 22:48 ---
Well, it's probably worth trying a little harder to grok them, then. Zdenek has
already said that the fix looks OK in principle, but I am not interested at all
in working on this patch anymore (especially not when
--- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 22:55 ---
Brief explanation about what the patch does:
* have a pointer to the location of the invariant within an rtx. The existing
code assumes a complete RHS is invariant, but with the patch GCC can move
invariants out of
--- Comment #11 from sandra at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-10 21:07
---
I just checked to see if this is still a problem. As of r162042, the example
in comment #1 produces the same (bad) output as GCC 4.4.1. However, the example
in comment #4 looks fixed to me, with this output:
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 19:59 ---
I think this is the same issue as PR 36758.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 20:10
---
Actually looking at comment #4 shows that is an exact duplicate of PR 36758 so
closing as a dup.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 36758 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2010-01-30
09:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 regression] extra
spills due to RTL LICM
(Looking at Zdenek:) Would something like this in a more polished and actually
verifiedtested form be a good idea?
I think
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 23:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=19755)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19755action=view)
Hack to look for invariants inside MEMs
Re. comment #4:
The following code would also be correct, right?
test:
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 00:42 ---
Working with gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20090808 (experimental) [trunk revision 150579],
I looked at what loop-invariant.c did to the test case.
This is the t.c.154r.loop2 RTL dump (obtained with -fdump-rtl-all-slim):
;;
13 matches
Mail list logo
