https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 24 10:15:16 2019
New Revision: 271598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271598=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90106
PR testsuite/90517
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #20 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Mon May 20 15:01:46 2019
New Revision: 271424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271424=gcc=rev
Log:
[testsuite] PR90106 Fix cdce3.c testcase
2019-05-20 Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #19 from JunMa ---
we can skip the target by adding
/* { dg-skip-if "need hardfp abi" { *-*-* } { "-mfloat-abi=soft" } { "" } } */
to testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #18 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to JunMa from comment #17)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #16)
> > That's what I did... (use -fdump-tree-cdce-details).
> >
> > The assembler code is:
> > .arm
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #17 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #16)
> That's what I did... (use -fdump-tree-cdce-details).
>
> The assembler code is:
> .arm
> .fpu softvfp
> .type foo, %function
> foo:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #16 from Christophe Lyon ---
That's what I did... (use -fdump-tree-cdce-details).
The assembler code is:
.arm
.fpu softvfp
.type foo, %function
foo:
@ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #15 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> Sure, here is the contents of cdce3.c.105t.cdce:
>
> ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=4197, cgraph_uid=1,
> symbol_order=0)
>
> foo (float x)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Lyon ---
Sure, here is the contents of cdce3.c.105t.cdce:
;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=4197, cgraph_uid=1,
symbol_order=0)
foo (float x)
{
float _4;
[local count: 1073741824]:
_4 = sqrtf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #13 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #12)
> This new test fails on arm:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/cdce3.c scan-tree-dump cdce "cdce3.c:9: [^\n\r]* function call
> is shrink-wrapped into error conditions."
I don't have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #11 from junma at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: junma
Date: Fri May 17 10:13:29 2019
New Revision: 271319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271319=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90106
* gcc.dg/cdce3.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #10 from junma at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: junma
Date: Thu May 16 08:21:17 2019
New Revision: 271281
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271281=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90106
* tree-call-cdce.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #9 from JunMa ---
(In reply to JunMa from comment #7)
> yes, the transformation in CDEC prevent the tail call optimization. let's
> check the return stmt in CDEC pass.
Sorry for the confused comment.
As the discussion above, The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
--- Comment #8 from JunMa ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> Reopening and confirming, GCC's code looks less efficient than possible for
> no good reason.
>
> CDCE does
>
> y = sqrt (x);
> ==>
> y =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90106
JunMa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com
--- Comment #7
16 matches
Mail list logo
