https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.4 |5.5
--- Comment #37 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.3 |5.4
--- Comment #36 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.2 |5.3
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |5.2
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #33 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #31)
The test also fails on PowerPC, the 2 IVs are kept by ivopts.
On targets like ARM, the biv(i) is eliminated with biv(p). PowerPC is
different, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #29 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #28)
On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
use 0
address
in statement *p_1 = 0;
at position *p_1
type int *
base p_7
step 4
base object (void *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #28 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On hppa 32, the two iv uses are:
use 0
address
in statement *p_1 = 0;
at position *p_1
type int *
base p_7
step 4
base object (void *) p_7
related candidates
use 1
compare
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #30 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
Is this a problem with insn costs, or a problem in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The test also fails on PowerPC, the 2 IVs are kept by ivopts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #32 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #30)
On 2015-02-08, at 9:09 AM, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Ah, candidate 5 is considered cheaper according to the cost table.
Is this a problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #25 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-06, at 6:33 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Correction: we have only one IV on the PA, but it's 'i' and not 'p'.
Dave, is the generated code optimimal on the PA or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #27 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-07, at 5:24 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The generated code on PA looks optimal to me:
zdep %r25,29,30,%r28
b .L2
ldi 99,%r19
.L6:
zdep %r25,29,30,%r28
.L2:
addl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Feb 6 11:17:46 2015
New Revision: 220473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220473root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/62631
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, this is fixed on the SPARC, but not on the PA where we still have 2 IVs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, this is fixed on the SPARC, but not on the PA where we still have 2 IVs.
Correction: we have only one IV on the PA, but it's 'i' and not 'p'.
Dave, is the generated code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #24 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-06 6:33 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #18 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #16)
The cost of expression p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) * 4 computed
using normal +/-/* operators on sparc64 is 18, but the cost is 32 if it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #19)
The assembly is as below on sparc64:
f1:
.register %g2, #scratch
sllx%o1, 2, %g1
mov 99, %g2
add %o0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The assembly is as below on sparc64:
f1:
.register %g2, #scratch
sllx%o1, 2, %g1
mov 99, %g2
add %o0, %g1, %o0
sub %g2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The cost of expression p + ((sizetype)(99 - i_6(D)) + 1) * 4 computed
using normal +/-/* operators on sparc64 is 18, but the cost is 32 if it is
computed as p +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This looks a generic problem in get_shiftadd_cost to me, it ought to mimic the
algorithms in expmed.c, something like:
@@ -3597,22 +3597,26 @@ get_shiftadd_cost (tree expr,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #15 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #14)
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
I'm about to install a patch that changes the costs on SPARC 64-bit to:
Use 1:
cand costcompl.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
I'm about to install a patch that changes the costs on SPARC 64-bit to:
Use 1:
cand costcompl. depends on
0 4 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Feb 3 09:56:45 2015
New Revision: 220369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220369root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/62631
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34308
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34308action=edit
hppa ivopts dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
29 matches
Mail list logo
