https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7b3378f91c0641f2ef4d88db22af62a571c9359
commit r10-6451-gb7b3378f91c0641f2ef4d88db22af62a571c9359
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17a2e8c0918c2ddda82ace9ed17464906f96633d
commit r10-6450-g17a2e8c0918c2ddda82ace9ed17464906f96633d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With or without the fix, the very unfortunate thing is that -fipa-ra then
effectively can't preserve anything in the XMM* registers across calls when
those callees use vzeroupper, even when it would be just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Like (completely untested):
--- gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c.jj 2020-01-27 13:20:40.421650866 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c 2020-02-03 12:13:23.639161823 +0100
@@ -1764,29 +1764,32 @@ con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, if the clobbers (unlike sets) are there just for -fipa-ra purposes, can't
we drop the clobbers from the pattern and only add them during output (i.e.
replace "vzeroupper" with C code that first modifies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Sorry, I was wrong in comment 10. I'd forgotten that the original
point of all this was that, without the clobber, -fipa-ra would
assume that the register isn't clobbered at all. The RA coul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to Liu Hao from comment #7)
> > MSDN says 'the upper portions of YMM0-15 and ZMM0-15 are considered volatile
> > and must be considered de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Liu Hao from comment #7)
> MSDN says 'the upper portions of YMM0-15 and ZMM0-15 are considered volatile
> and must be considered destroyed on function calls' explicitly [1].
BTW: MSDN is clear tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Liu Hao from comment #7)
> MSDN says 'the upper portions of YMM0-15 and ZMM0-15 are considered volatile
> and must be considered destroyed on function calls' explicitly [1].
>
> I am not clear abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Liu Hao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #7 from Li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||10walls at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> @Uros: Any update about this? Do you know about somebody who can help us
> with an answer to your question?
This is MS ABI, so perhaps cygwin/mingw-w64 maintainer c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
@Uros: Any update about this? Do you know about somebody who can help us with
an answer to your question?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-10-23 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It looks that we got partial saves of MS ABI functions all wrong.
According to Table 4 on page 10 of [1], the MS ABI callee saves only lower
128bit parts of XMM6 - XMM15. So, there is no guarantee that upper p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-10-23
Known to work|
20 matches
Mail list logo
