https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #12 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for GCC 13. Sorry for introducing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8caf155a3d6e23e47bf55068ad23c23d4655a054
commit r13-4272-g8caf155a3d6e23e47bf55068ad23c23d4655a054
Author: Hongyu Wang
Date: Sat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #9)
> The difference is, -mno-unroll-only-small-loops -O2 would cause
> rtl-loop-unroll takeing effect,
No. -m{no-,}unroll-only-small-loops does not enable or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #9 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5)
> > > -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and it
> > > should not, so that it does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5)
> > -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and it
> > should not, so that it does what it says, if nothing else.
>
> Yes, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #7 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #4)
> cut...
>
> Yes, I've already posted the patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606478.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #6 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 53897 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Sorry for introducing these fails. Here is the patch.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #5 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
> -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and it
> should not, so that it does what it says, if nothing else.
Yes, and -funroll-loops would win over -munroll-only-small-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
Jiu Fu Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi!
(In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #2)
> I've tested the patch with cross-compler and all the fails disappeared, but
> I don't have a powerpc to do full bootstrap & regtest (I'm still applying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
Created attachment 53897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53897=edit
A patch
Sorry for introducing these fails. Here is the patch.
I've tested the patch with cross-compler and all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some of these testcases might need -mno-unroll-only-small-loops now.
16 matches
Mail list logo
