https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.5.0
Target Milestone|10.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note f4 right now produces the best code even though it is not add/setN.
leal(%rdi,%rsi), %eax
shrl$31, %eax
is better overall because it does not touch the flags register and all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.4|11.5
--- Comment #25 from Jakub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c5ef2f9ab545b680cd4bb6c540a9dadb12ead86
commit r13-3586-g5c5ef2f9ab545b680cd4bb6c540a9dadb12ead86
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.4|10.5
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu ---
i386 already has
12980(define_insn_and_split "*x86_shrd_2"
12981 [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "nonimmediate_operand")
12982(ior:SI (lshiftrt:SI (match_dup 0)
12983
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.3|11.4
--- Comment #24 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
I do not plan to backport this given it's quite intrusive and had some fallout.
-*-*
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression] Unoptimal
|Unoptimal code for __negdi2 |code for __negdi2 (and
|(and others) from libgcc2 |others) from libgcc2 due to
|due to unwanted |unwanted vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90d693bdc9d71841f51d68826ffa5bd685d7f0bc
commit r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d71841f51d68826ffa5bd685d7f0bc
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f24dfc76177b3994434c8beb287cde1a9976b5ce
commit r12-7318-gf24dfc76177b3994434c8beb287cde1a9976b5ce
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:61fc5e098e76c9809f35f449a70c9c8d74773d9d
commit r12-7317-g61fc5e098e76c9809f35f449a70c9c8d74773d9d
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Hmm:
> _14 = {_1, _5};
> _8 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<__int128>(_14);
>
> Wouldn't it better to convert that to just (hopefully I got the order
> correct):
> t1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
For
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91446.c scan-assembler-times vmovdqa[^\\n\\r]*xmm[0-9]
2
we used to produce
:
0: 48 83 ec 28 sub$0x28,%rsp
4: c4 e1 f9 6e d7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The patch will cause
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91446.c scan-assembler-times vmovdqa[^\\n\\r]*xmm[0-9]
2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr92658-avx512bw-2.c scan-assembler-times pmovsxdq 2
FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Another testcase is
struct S { double a, b; } s;
void
foo (double a, double b)
{
s.a = a;
s.b = b;
}
which also receives the same costs and compiles vectorized to
unpcklpd %xmm1,%xmm0
movaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 52476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52476=edit
minimal patch
This is a minimal untested patch adjusting APIs to allow for the cost hook to
receive a slp_node in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 18 Feb 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> True.
> So another option is to try to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
True.
So another option is to try to undo some of those short vectorization cases
during isel, expansion or later, though e.g. for the negdi2 case it will go
already during expansion into memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I think it makes sense to build libgcc with -mno-sse, maybe even
-mgeneral-regs-only. Or globally with -fno-tree-vectorize (but we likely do
not want
%xmm uses for parameter setup either with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Just trying a dumb microbenchmark:
> struct S { unsigned long a, b; } s;
>
> __attribute__((noipa)) void
> foo (unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
> {
> s.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Just trying a dumb microbenchmark:
struct S { unsigned long a, b; } s;
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
{
s.a = a;
s.b = b;
}
int
main ()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The costs look weird:
> _1 1 times scalar_store costs 12 in body
> _5 1 times scalar_store costs 12 in body
> _1 1 times vector_store costs 12 in body
> 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-18
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The costs look weird:
_1 1 times scalar_store costs 12 in body
_5 1 times scalar_store costs 12 in body
_1 1 times vector_store costs 12 in body
1 times vec_construct costs 8 in prologue
vec_construct is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What slp does is just
- w.s.low = _1;
- w.s.high = _5;
+ _14 = {_1, _5};
+ MEM[(union *)] = _14;
I must say I don't really see that as a beneficial optimization, construction
of a vector from scalars
Summary|Unoptimal code for __negdi2 |[11/12 Regression]
|(and others) from libgcc2 |Unoptimal code for __negdi2
|due to unwanted |(and others) from libgcc2
|vectorization |due to unwanted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Please note that gcc-10 does not vectorize the testcase even with -O3
-ftree-vectorize.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104582
Bug ID: 104582
Summary: Unoptimal code for __negdi2 (and others) from libgcc2
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> float_double and fix_double don't produce the best code yet.
It's because loop vectorizer can only use one vector size, since BB vect
supports different vector
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
float_double and fix_double don't produce the best code yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.3|10.4
--- Comment #10 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
This is likely because we expand from
int bar (int x, int y)
{
int _6;
[local count: 1073741824]:
if (x_2(D) != y_3(D))
goto ; [48.88%]
else
goto ; [51.12%]
[local count: 524845000]:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
--- Comment #1 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 49734
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49734=edit
assemble generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98236
Bug ID: 98236
Summary: x plus/minus y cmp 0 produces unoptimal code
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree
|unoptimal code for float|unoptimal code for float
|equallity comparison|equallity comparison
|followed by jump|followed by jump
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk.
Not sure about backports, seems too risky to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5c05005499dd323296008fda4f414d8647adf0c
commit r11-5923-ga5c05005499dd323296008fda4f414d8647adf0c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:680e4202f23ce74f3b26c7f090b9d22a56765554
commit r11-5899-g680e4202f23ce74f3b26c7f090b9d22a56765554
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or shall it instead do:
--- gcc/dojump.c.jj 2020-12-09 15:11:17.042888002 +0100
+++ gcc/dojump.c2020-12-09 20:34:13.124398356 +0100
@@ -1148,9 +1148,8 @@ do_compare_rtx_and_jump (rtx op0, rtx op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for f2, only the case of a == b when the jump is predicted unlikely looks
weird, e.g. take:
void foo (void);
void
bar (float a, float b)
{
if (__builtin_expect (a != b, 1))
foo ();
}
void
baz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
f1 is currently unoptimal by design, the compiler is unable to merge trapping
and non-trapping instructions. There is already a PR for that.
f2 is not optimal. The conditional jump to the unconditional jump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|X86 unoptimal code for |[10/11 Regression] X86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98212
Bug ID: 98212
Summary: X86 unoptimal code for float equallity comparison
followed by jump
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unoptimal code generation |Unoptimal code generation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1dd66b108cba086f58448ccbe9bf57b0a342f9a
commit r11-5279-ga1dd66b108cba086f58448ccbe9bf57b0a342f9a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #49613|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 49613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49613
gcc11-pr97950.patch
>+(define_insn_and_split "*setcc_hi_1"
>+ [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "=q")
>+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
--- Comment #2 from denis.campredon at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for your fast patch. I've opened PR97961 for the __int128 problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950
Bug ID: 97950
Summary: Unoptimal code generation with
__builtin_*_overflow{,_p} for short and __int128
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:94c0409717bf8bf783963c1d50bb8f4a4732dce7
commit r11-596-g94c0409717bf8bf783963c1d50bb8f4a4732dce7
Author: liuhongt
Date: Sat May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> It turns out that a bunch of patterns have to be renamed (and testcases
> added).
>
> Easyhack, waiting for someone to show some love to conversion patterns in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> It turns out that a bunch of patterns have to be renamed (and testcases
> added).
>
> Easyhack, waiting for someone to show some love to conversion patterns in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It turns out that a bunch of patterns have to be renamed (and testcases added).
Easyhack, waiting for someone to show some love to conversion patterns in
sse.md.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> ISTR I filed a duplicate 10 years ago or so. The issue is the vectorizer
> could not handle V4DFmode -> V4SFmode conversions.
>
> Could, because for SVE we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95125
Bug ID: 95125
Summary: Unoptimal code for vectorized conversions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |6.5
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek
|unoptimal code for two |code for two simple loops
|simple loops|
--- Comment #25 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I don't think the codesize going up with -O2 is a significant issue here. It
looks like the regression with -Os is fixed. We can also see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
--- Comment #24 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #23)
> I can also confirm Os is fixed on trunk @244877 using reported command line,
> while O2 goes up to 76 now.
on arm (with -march=armv5te -mthumb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |5.5
--- Comment #21 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.5 |4.9.3
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |4.8.5
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.4 |4.8.4
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-12-04 00:00:00 |2014-6-7
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
--- Comment #16 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com ---
For optimization level O2, the dump before IVOPT is like:
bb 2:
_21 = p_6(D)-count;
if (_21 0)
goto bb 3;
else
goto bb 11;
bb 3:
bb 4:
# i_26 = PHI i_20(10),
)
(plus:HI (match_operand:HI 1 register_operand %0)
(match_operand:HI 2 general_mov_operand Ar)))]
add\t%0, (%2)
)
The problem we stuck with is that the compiler emit unoptimal code for
the below testcase with -O0 option
int a,b;
int func()
{
return a=b;
}
.s file
ld
))]
{
}
)
(define_insn addhi3
[(set (match_operand:HI 0 register_operand =Ar)
(plus:HI (match_operand:HI 1 register_operand %0)
(match_operand:HI 2 general_mov_operand Ar)))]
add\t%0, (%2)
)
The problem we stuck with is that the compiler emit unoptimal code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58405
--- Comment #2 from semicontinuity at yandex dot ru ---
Now I cannot reproduce that as well..
It seems that I've compiled it with -ffixed-r30 -ffixed-r31 (different from
original intention) - in this case it produces this kind of assembly .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58405
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58405
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58405
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58405
Bug ID: 58405
Summary: Unoptimal code generated for computed goto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.4 |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-01 13:45:33
UTC ---
Created attachment 29764
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29764
Patch from comment #4
I apparently forgot to attach a patch when I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
Bug #: 55583
Summary: Extended shift instruction on x86-64 is not used,
producing unoptimal code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
--- Comment #1 from Mikko Markus Torni mtkilpailut at torni dot org
2012-12-04 00:08:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28867
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28867
gcc-HEAD compiler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55583
Mikko Markus Torni mikko.markus.torni at iki dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28866|0
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
