https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #17 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #16)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > > I think what matters is whether
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #16 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > I think what matters is whether the new asm for those is the same or better
> > than before. If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think what matters is whether the new asm for those is the same or better
than before. If the tests hardcode particular RA decisions, they'll obviously
FAIL when something in the RA changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #13 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #12)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> > > Fixed by Vlad's patch on the trunk.
> >
> > This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> > Fixed by Vlad's patch on the trunk.
>
> This patch causes regressions:
> aarch64:
>
I've committed one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:897a73086b2d63a5a6ae79f4276422272eca534d
commit r10-6395-g897a73086b2d63a5a6ae79f4276422272eca534d
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 91320 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a07345c4f8dabc286fc470e76c53473e5bc3eb7
commit r10-6384-g2a07345c4f8dabc286fc470e76c53473e5bc3eb7
Author: Vladimir N. Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
>
> However, if I add -mavx, I get
>
> vmovapd %xmm0, %xmm2
> vmovapd %xmm1, %xmm4
> vmovapd %xmm1, %xmm0
> vaddsd %xmm0, %xmm4, %xmm0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
With trunk (master?), compiling with -O3, h gives
movapd %xmm1, %xmm3
addsd %xmm3, %xmm1
movapd %xmm0, %xmm2
addsd %xmm2, %xmm0
addsd %xmm1, %xmm0
which looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
gcc version 9.2.1 20191109 (Debian 9.2.1-19)
(current debian testing/unstable)
gives me the 3 movapd, whether I use -O1, -O2 or -O3, and -Os gives 2 movapd. I
didn't try with a vanilla gcc, not sure which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.2 |9.3
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
18 matches
Mail list logo
