https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 10 07:53:23 2019
New Revision: 271056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271056=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
And in the testcase that prompted Ramana's original patch it clearly wanted to
ask something else.
We can't have it both ways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In this and many other testcases it wants to ask is STRICT_ALIGNMENT non-zero?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> > I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> > arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> > FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46327=edit
gcc10-pr88709-test.patch
Untested patch for the testsuite (well, I've tested it on x86_64-linux,
together with some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> FAIL: gcc.dg/store_merging_29.c scan-tree-dump store-merging
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon May 6 21:50:14 2019
New Revision: 270924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270924=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88709
PR tree-optimization/90271
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
WIP:
--- gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c.jj 2019-01-01 12:37:19.063943678 +0100
+++ gcc/gimple-ssa-store-merging.c 2019-04-29 19:02:55.992151104 +0200
@@ -1615,13 +1615,31 @@ encode_tree_to_bitpos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, especially with large constructors, unlike other overlapping stores it
might not be feasible to merge the large clearing or memset with the other
stores, but still it might be possible to merge several
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
14 matches
Mail list logo
