"Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>> The test passes on aarch64, but fails on arm targets. Maybe that's
>>> easier for Bin to reproduce?
>> Hi all,
>> Sorry for the inconvenience, I will have a look at the two targets.
> Hmm, the failure is because post-increment is enabled in IVOPT on
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2016 at 10:59, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Bin Cheng writes:
>>>
diff
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 18 June 2016 at 10:59, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Bin Cheng writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
>>>
On 18 June 2016 at 10:59, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Bin Cheng writes:
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000..7e5ad49
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++
Bin Cheng writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000..7e5ad49
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch partially reverts part of r235513 to fix PR71347, the original
> patch is to improve compilation time for a small amount. Root cause as
> analyzed in bugzilla PR is that we can't skip computing cost for
Hi,
This patch partially reverts part of r235513 to fix PR71347, the original patch
is to improve compilation time for a small amount. Root cause as analyzed in
bugzilla PR is that we can't skip computing cost for sub iv_use if it has
different position to the first use in group. The patch