https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72771
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org, |
|amodra at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72771
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
> I'm wondering why this pattern even has a Z alternative
It would be nice to be able to edit bugzilla entries, to remove dumb comments
like that one.
at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72771
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71680
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 39056
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39056=edit
save SImode regs in SImode
Arseny, you might like to try this. I don't have the means at the moment to
properly test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72802
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
wY is using mem_operand_gpr which is designed for gpr loads/stores. When -m32,
mem_operand_gpr does not enforce multiple-of-4 offsets.
||2016-08-04
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
"o" constraints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71680
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra ---
The e500 issue is quite different, and is not fixed by my lra patch. From the
lra dump,
Creating newreg=436, assigning class NO_REGS to save r436
536: r192:SI=0x1
REG_EQUAL 0x1
Add
|ASSIGNED
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||patches/2016-08/msg00113.ht
||ml
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71680
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Arseny, I could not reproduce the problem using your testcase, and I tried a
dozen or so revisions around 20160626 buiding powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
cross-compilers on an x86_64-linux host. Please specify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72103
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
I looked, and decided there wasn't much we could do. So the main nastiness in
the sequence is the mem store/load, but that is just reload running out of regs
and spilling. Yes, it looks really dumb when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71680
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
lra doesn't load in SFmode due to the following condition in
lra-constraints.c:simplify_operand_subreg
/* If we change address for paradoxical subreg of memory, the
address might violate the necessary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71680
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72103
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72103
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, patch
at gmail dot com|
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
||2016-07-26
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
So, we are dealing with reloads for this insn:
(insn 488 206 406 31 (set (reg:DI 317)
(unspec:DI
||amodra at gmail dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|7.0 |6.2
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra ---
Fixed for gcc-7 and gcc-6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71763
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38833
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38833=edit
output reloads on jump insns
Revised https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg00739.html
It's surprising how little
||2016-07-05
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
Confirmed. This long-standing reload problem won't be fixed until something
like https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
find_call_crossed_cheap_reg is certainly confusing. On looking at it again
this morning, I can't see why it uses reg_overlap_mentioned_p to break out of
the loop. Who cares if the reg is referenced (except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38802=edit
fix
Cures the error in find_call_crossed_cheap_reg
||amodra at gmail dot com
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Comment #3 isn't showing any real problem. Where things go wrong is in ira
where the first strcpy call gets a bad REG_RETURNED note.
I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
*** Bug 71531 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71531
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 63748, which changed state.
Bug 63748 Summary: [4.9 Regression] wrong may be used uninitialized warning
(abnormal edges)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71275
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71275
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org, |
|amodra at gmail
||2016-05-26
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Confirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70947
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|7.0
dot gnu.org, |
|amodra at gmail dot com|
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #11 from Alan Modra ---
Fixed, until it breaks next time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70890
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2016-05-04
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Instructions around a __morestack call typically have r0, used to save and
restore lr, replaced with other regs by regrename. This trashes the current
function parameter and return regs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70866
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70890
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ia64-*-*|ia64-*-*, powerpc64-linux
at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38401
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38401=edit
patch under test
Andreas, please let me know if this cures the ia64 bootstrap problem. By
inspection the code looks g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70890
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69645
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2016-04-29
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-ffixed-cr2 -ffixed-cr3 -ffixed-cr4" } */
#define SET_CR(R,V) __asm__ __volatile__ ("mtcrf %0,%1" : : "
||2016-04-29
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
It looks like a testcase bug. -frename-regs happens to make main() use cr2,
and there doesn't seem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70826
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Comment #4 was added to the wrong bug. Not fixed on gcc-5 branch.
||amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone|6.0 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
--- Comment #28 from Alan Modra ---
Bootstrapped and regression testing now completed on both powerpc64le-linux and
-m64/-m32 on a power7 powerpc64-linux host, all langs. No regressions found,
and it seems this also fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
--- Comment #24 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38266
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38266=edit
testcase for gcc.dg/vect/
Revised testcase checking multiple offsets, using an array of structs so not
dependent on var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
--- Comment #11 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38250=edit
stand alone testcase
Compile with -m64 -O3 -mcpu=power7 -fno-common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra ---
||2016-04-13
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Resolution|INVALID |---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
My analysis says this is not a linker error. Pass/fail
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70107
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Bootstrap and regression testing completed for both gcc-4.9 and gcc-5 branch
||2016-04-12
CC||amodra at gmail dot com,
||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
This is actually a duplicate of pr70096
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra ---
> if (fmt == _extended_double)
No, there is mips_extended_format too.
at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|5.3.1 |4.9.4
Summary|ICE compiling
at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38072
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38072=edit
tentative patch
This hasn't been tested much, apart from verifying that the testcase compiles.
I also find that I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69645
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70263
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70263
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38017
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38017=edit
possible fix
Maybe something as simple as this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63169
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54110
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32621
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26525
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26270
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- |https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
|patches/2016-03/msg00361.ht |patches/2016-03/msg00604.ht
|ml |ml
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I'm not sure this is really a combine bug, but I noticed that for x86_64 and
gfortran.dg/pr46755.f, combine is able to convert
(insn 62 34 35 9 (set (reg/v:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
> Well, what I don't quite understand is that the gnulib value, which is
>
> 0x1.f7cp+1023
Sorry, I didn't look properly at the bug before commenting last night. For
some reason I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37863|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra ---
Blah, that last patch segfaults all over the place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37862|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 37862
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37862=edit
delete bad reg_equiv
A patch like this one that deletes reg_equiv notes that become invalid
according to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 37857
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37857=edit
workaround patch
Given the problems identified with notes (and of course the notes are what
drives reg_equiv_init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
I don't think we can make the decl with the larger alignment prevail. Aren't
we stuck with "c" due to it being referenced by the constructor?
It goes like:
1) "c" is referenced in a constructor, thus
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Seen on powerpc64le-linux at -O1 -Wall
#pragma pack(1)
struct S0 {
unsigned f0 : 17;
};
int c;
int main(void)
{
struct S0 d[] = { { 1 }, { 2 } };
struct S0 e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Oh, and in case it isn't obvious, -free-loop-vectorize is what triggers the
alignment increase of arrays in pass_ipa_increase_alignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 37817
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37817=edit
prevent var alias
Jan, does this look reasonable?
||2016-02-28
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
symtab_node
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following testcase on powerpc64le-linux results in
/usr/local/powerpc64le-linux/bin/ld: pack.o: In function `main':
pack.c:(.text.startup+0x10): error: R_PPC64_TOC16_LO_DS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68959
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra ---
*** Bug 68959 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68959
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
||2016-02-17
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
fix in progress
||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||patches/2016-02/msg01039.ht
||ml
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
||2016-02-16
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Confirmed. Can be seen on other powerpc targets with -mno-mfcrf -misel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68886
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|segher at gcc dot gnu.org |amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 37670
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37670=edit
rtl dumps
dumps for pr67211.C -O3 -mcpu=power7 -fno-vect-cost-model, mainline rev 233357.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14
301 - 400 of 872 matches
Mail list logo
