https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #19 from Matthias Klose ---
here is a test case from an ICE I saw when backporting the patch to the gcc-5
Linaro branch. Fails with -O2, works with -O1
typedef int Nlm_Int4, ValNodePtr;
Nlm_Int4 b, e;
char c, d;
void fn1();
typedef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #17 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Jan 18 20:56:13 2016
New Revision: 232540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232540=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/69176
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (add3): Move long immediate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37267|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #12)
> The only remaining question I had whether it would be possible to use
> peephole expansions rather than the late splits. If they are evaluated in
> order then if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> The final split happens a few phases later, so I wondered whether it would
> be feasible to do all the splitting during peep2. There is likely no real CQ
> gain in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #14)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #12)
> > The only remaining question I had whether it would be possible to use
> > peephole expansions rather than the late splits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #12 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> With your patch expand always emits add instructions with complex immediates
> which then can't be optimized.
OK, so I can change your patch do the right thing with 2 minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #11 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #10)
> Created attachment 37267 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Andrew is exactly right re plus being special.
>
> The pluslong hoops that are being jumped through are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > > I think the problem is the constraints on *add3_pluslong allows all
> > > immediates.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean here - there are 4 constraints that should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > > > I think the problem is the constraints on *add3_pluslong allows
> > > > all immediates.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note -g is not needed to reproduce the bug and speeds up the compiling a lot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Happens with r231970 also.
18 matches
Mail list logo
