https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #10 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jan 21 16:05:14 2016
New Revision: 232680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232680=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
2016-01-21 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #9 from Alexander
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Mon Jan 11 12:07:31 2016
New Revision: 232220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232220=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
2016-01-11 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
You are quite right - the cost model is very poor. We did simple experiment and
set up the branch cost to 1 but noticed performance regressions on other
benchmarks. when we set it to 2 we did not see any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-*-*|x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #6 from James Greenhalgh ---
Rather than a target macro, I think I'd rather implement this as a parameter
along the lines of "max-rtl-ifcvt-insns" - i386 backend could then set this to
1 and avoid the issue. I'll try to get to that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #3 from James Greenhalgh ---
>From the perspective of the (admittedly deficient) very simple cost model in
if-conversion, this is not a bad transformation. We replace a branch with cost
"3 instructions" with 2 instructions. What is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Another incarnation of PR 56309 ?
11 matches
Mail list logo