https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #22 from Haochen Jiang ---
Fixed in GCC14 and GCC15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Haochen Jiang
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ad5c9d524d8fa99773045e75da04ae958012085
commit r14-10229-g1ad5c9d524d8fa99773045e75da04ae958012085
Author: Haochen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Haochen Jiang :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73a167cfa225d5ee7092d41596b9fea1719898ff
commit r15-764-g73a167cfa225d5ee7092d41596b9fea1719898ff
Author: Haochen Jiang
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #19 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #18)
> SPEC
SPEC seems all same binary to me. So there is no surprise.
I suppose let's go with patch from Uros to just emphasize the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #18 from Haochen Jiang ---
SPEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #15)
> I am doing like this way. Suppose should be same as Comment 8.
Yes, but IMO the patch in Comment #8 better describes where the problem is.
Please note that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
> Should we also run a SPEC on with -O2 -mtune=generic -march=x86-64-v3 to see
> if there is any surprise?
Sure, I guess no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #15 from Haochen Jiang ---
I am doing like this way. Suppose should be same as Comment 8.
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386-expand.cc
index a6132911e6a..1e8334877d6 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> > > (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #10)
> > > > A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #12)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #10)
> > > A patch like Comment 8 could definitely solve the problem. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #12 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #10)
> > A patch like Comment 8 could definitely solve the problem. But I need to
> > test more benchmarks to see if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #10)
> A patch like Comment 8 could definitely solve the problem. But I need to
> test more benchmarks to see if there is surprise.
>
> But, yes, as Uros said in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #10 from Haochen Jiang ---
A patch like Comment 8 could definitely solve the problem. But I need to test
more benchmarks to see if there is surprise.
But, yes, as Uros said in Comment 9, maybe there is a chance we could do it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> A better patch:
The real issue is that the following permutation (truncation):
+ for (i = 0; i < d.nelt; ++i)
+ d.perm[i] = i * 2;
+
+ ok =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Krzysztof Kanas from comment #4)
> > I bisected the issue and it seems that commit
> > 0368fc54bc11f15bfa0ed9913fd0017815dfaa5d introduces regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #6 from Haochen Jiang ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> (In reply to Krzysztof Kanas from comment #4)
> > I bisected the issue and it seems that commit
> > 0368fc54bc11f15bfa0ed9913fd0017815dfaa5d introduces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Krzysztof Kanas from comment #4)
> I bisected the issue and it seems that commit
> 0368fc54bc11f15bfa0ed9913fd0017815dfaa5d introduces regression.
I guess the real guilty commit is
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
Krzysztof Kanas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkanas at fastmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115069
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
21 matches
Mail list logo