http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #10 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, joey.ye at arm dot com wrote:
But that doesn't make sense - it means that -fdisable-tree-forwprop4
should get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #11 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
Repost from another record. It is annoying that after commenting one record it
automatically jumps to the next.
Here is good expansion:
;; _41 = _42 * 4;
(insn 20 19 0 (set (reg:SI 126 [
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #7 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
(In reply to Joey Ye from comment #4)
-fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
The former is strange because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #8 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
Here is tree dump and diff of 133t.forwprop4
bb 2:
Int_Index_4 = Int_1_Par_Val_3(D) + 5;
Int_Loc.0_5 = (unsigned int) Int_Index_4;
_6 = Int_Loc.0_5 * 4;
_8 = Arr_1_Par_Ref_7(D) + _6;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, joey.ye at arm dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #8 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
Here is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #2 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
Created attachment 32131
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32131action=edit
The function that causes the regression
Attached Proc_8 from dhrystone, header file and good/bad.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't really interpret the asm differences but it seems we need more
registers?
Forwprop applies the association transform (those that fold-const.c already
does when presented
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #4 from Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com ---
-fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Joey Ye from comment #4)
-fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
The former is strange because it's the only pass that does sth that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that we can probably avoid regressing TER by removing the dead stmt
in forwprop itself (which would be appropriate at this stage).
But as that doesn't help this still needs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
13 matches
Mail list logo
