https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
I agree, we shouldn't backport this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Monakov ---
I'd like to backport this to gcc-9 branch and then close this bug (Richi
already indicated that further backports are not desirable). Thoughts?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] |[7/8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.4 |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #11 from Michael_S ---
Sorry for intervening, but IMHO a new __builtin is long overdue.
__builtin
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> > Well, original_costs is already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Scaling costs by edge probabilities would also solve this issue, perhaps in a
cleaner way.
(to be clear: if speed_p, instead of taking the weird faux-minimum, add to
original_cost the linear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> Well, original_costs is already initialized with COSTS_N_INSNS (2),
> accounting for test and branch that would be removed. So it's not too bad:
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Treating the missing else cost as 0 cost isn't right either, it is ok to
> accept some small cost, otherwise we wouldn't do the if conversion ever with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect it is treating cost 0 as being free rather than unknown cost. And
the x86 backend is returning 0 cost for the upper multiple.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87047
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
15 matches
Mail list logo
