[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 --- Comment #60 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-23 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #59 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #58) > If we don't want to go with #c35 at least for GCC 9, would the #c44 patch be > still useful without it (does it ever trigger say on the kernel where it >

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-23 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #58 from Jakub Jelinek --- If we don't want to go with #c35 at least for GCC 9, would the #c44 patch be still useful without it (does it ever trigger say on the kernel where it didn't trigger before)?

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-23 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #57

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|bergner at gcc

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #55 from Peter Bergner --- Author: bergner Date: Thu Apr 18 22:14:17 2019 New Revision: 270448 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270448=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/87871 * ira-lives.c (make_object_dead):

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #54 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #52) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #48) > > With just Peter's and Jakub's patch, it *improves* code size by 0.090%. > > That does not fix this PR though

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #53 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #51) > In the more general case splitting this would produce worse code, not > better, since then we'd end up with two instructions rather than one. Sure, it

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #52 from Wilco --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #48) > With just Peter's and Jakub's patch, it *improves* code size by 0.090%. > That does not fix this PR though :-/ But it does fix most of the codesize regression.

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #51 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #50) > The insn is > > (insn 7 3 8 2 (parallel [ > (set (reg:CC 100 cc) > (compare:CC (reg:SI 0 r0 [116]) >

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #50 from Segher Boessenkool --- The insn is (insn 7 3 8 2 (parallel [ (set (reg:CC 100 cc) (compare:CC (reg:SI 0 r0 [116]) (const_int 0 [0]))) (set (reg/v:SI 4 r4 [orig:112

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #49 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #47) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #46) > > With all three patches together (Peter's, mine, Jakub's), I get a code size > > increase of only 0.047%,

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #48 from Segher Boessenkool --- With just Peter's and Jakub's patch, it *improves* code size by 0.090%. That does not fix this PR though :-/

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #47 from Wilco --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #46) > With all three patches together (Peter's, mine, Jakub's), I get a code size > increase of only 0.047%, much more acceptable. Now looking what that diff > really

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #46 from Segher Boessenkool --- With all three patches together (Peter's, mine, Jakub's), I get a code size increase of only 0.047%, much more acceptable. Now looking what that diff really *is* :-)

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek --- Well, it requires that the RA looks specially for this kind of pattern and if it ends up being a noop move, nothing simplifies the pattern again back to normal comparison, and as Segher noted, it can

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #43 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #40) > The question is what the code size differences would be with those changes > (i.e. how often does it help not to have *movsi_compare0 make RA decisions > worse

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #42 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #40) > The question is what the code size differences would be with those changes > (i.e. how often does it help not to have *movsi_compare0 make RA decisions >

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #41 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #38) > Well the question really is what is bad about movsi_compare0 that could be > easily fixed? "Easily fixed"... There is no such thing here. Because it is a

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #39) > On a linux kernel defconfig build it increases code size by 0.567%. > That seems a bit much :-( > > The peephole only recognises > > mov rA,rB > cmp

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #39 from Segher Boessenkool --- On a linux kernel defconfig build it increases code size by 0.567%. That seems a bit much :-( The peephole only recognises mov rA,rB cmp rB,#0 and not mov rA,rB cmp rA,#0 or cmp rB,#0

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #38 from Wilco --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #37) > Yes, it is a balancing act. Which option works better? Well the question really is what is bad about movsi_compare0 that could be easily fixed? The move is for

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #37 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yes, it is a balancing act. Which option works better?

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #36 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #35) > Peter's patch solves this particular problem, but not the PR unfortunately. > > I finally understand Jakub's comment 30. This patch solves the PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-18 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #35 from Segher Boessenkool --- Peter's patch solves this particular problem, but not the PR unfortunately. I finally understand Jakub's comment 30. This patch solves the PR (also without Peter's patch): === diff --git

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-17 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #46189|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-17 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-17 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #32 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #26) > (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #25) > > (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #24) > >> I don't know why r0 isn't in profitable_regs for pseudo

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-17 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool --- It's how you do a parallel of a mov and a flags set, which of course you can have before RA, and you want created by combine, typically. Or do I misunderstand the question? (I though Arm have a

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-17 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek --- Is the *movsi_compare0 pattern actually ever a benefit before RA? At least in this case it clearly results in a worse generated code rather than better, and I bet in other cases too, it just ties the hands

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-16 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #29 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27) > > Note: I'm assuming we're missing a \n after p116's empty conflicts above? > > The code is Right. I already whipped up a patch that gives me: ;;

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-16 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #28 from Peter Bergner --- Vlad, in looking at add_insn_allocno_copies(), it looks like it relies on seeing REG_DEAD notes on whether to record a copy/shuffle that should be handled. Shouldn't we instead be looking at whether the

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-16 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #27 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #26) > ;; a4(r117,l0) conflicts: a3(r112,l0) > ;; total conflict hard regs: > ;; conflict hard regs: > > ;; a5(r116,l0) conflicts:

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-16 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #26 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #25) > (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #24) >> I don't know why r0 isn't in profitable_regs for pseudo 116. > > Profitable regs there contain also

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-14 Thread vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #25 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #24) > So improve_allocation() initially looks at using r0, but disregards it > because check_hard_reg_p() returns false for r0, and that is because we fail > this

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #24 from Peter Bergner --- So improve_allocation() initially looks at using r0, but disregards it because check_hard_reg_p() returns false for r0, and that is because we fail this test: /* Checking only profitable hard regs. */

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool --- It says (I added some debug) Insn 50(l0): point = 27 ignoring for conflicts: (reg:SI 0 r0 [ a ]) but non_conflicting_reg_copy_p isn't called at all where it is improving the allocation

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #22 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #21) > (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #20) >> The question is why p116 conflicts with hr0. Before RA we have > > That's a bug since register copies should not

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #21 from Wilco --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #20) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #19) > > (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #18) > > > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > > > > Popping

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #20 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #19) > (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #18) > > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > > > Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3 > > >

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #19 from Wilco --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #18) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > > Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3 > > Popping a3(r112,l0) -- assign reg 4 > > Popping

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3 > Popping a3(r112,l0) -- assign reg 4 > Popping a2(r114,l0) -- assign reg 3 > Popping

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-11 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool --- (Which would make insn 50 go away, if you prefer to look at it that way).

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-11 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool --- Forming thread by copy 0:a0r111-a4r117 (freq=500): Result (freq=3500): a0r111(2500) a4r117(1000) Forming thread by copy 2:a3r112-a5r116 (freq=125): Result (freq=4500):

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-11 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12) > Disposition: > 0:r111 l0 03:r112 l0 41:r113 l0 22:r114 l0 3 > 5:r116 l0 44:r117 l0 0 > > If r116 had been

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Can we xfail/defer the bug?

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-05 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #8) > > mov r4, r0 > > cmp r4, #0 > > Why does it copy r0 to r4 and then compare r4? On more modern

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-05 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #8) > push{r4, lr} > mov r4, r0 > cmp r4, #0 Why does it copy r0 to r4 and then compare r4? On more modern machines it is faster to

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-05 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-04-05 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #8) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5) > > The first one just needs an xfail. I don't know if it should be *-*-* there > > or only arm*-*-* should be

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2019-02-06 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-12-21 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-12-14 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-12-14 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-11-20 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- The first one just needs an xfail. I don't know if it should be *-*-* there or only arm*-*-* should be added. The other two need some debugging by someone who knows the target and/or these tests.

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-11-20 Thread clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon --- As of r266293, the following regressions reported here are still failing: FAIL: gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue "Performing shrink-wrapping" FAIL:

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-11-20 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- I don't know, this is up to the arm people. I don't know if all problems reported here are fixed now.

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-11-20 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-11-05 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Mon Nov 5 21:18:22 2018 New Revision: 265821 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265821=gcc=rev Log: combine: Don't make an intermediate reg for assigning to sfp (PR87871) The

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

2018-11-05 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0