https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
--- Comment #13 from Brian Rzycki ---
James, if you develop any new ifcvt any patches you'd like to test on my full
source base I'd be happy to help. The code is very branchy and in some cases
have up to 4 nested if/else pairs. There are a couple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
--- Comment #11 from Brian Rzycki ---
HI James, if you don't see any major regressions and some good uplifts I
understand if this case is considered marginal. From my perspective I think
it's best to close this ticket and move on to more pressing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
--- Comment #9 from Brian Rzycki ---
Hello James,
If this is working as designed this may just be a case of having to live with
the regression. Do we know if anyone analyzed the net-benefit of Honza's patch?
If more benchmarks/tests win then I t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
--- Comment #6 from Brian Rzycki ---
James, my apologies if it wasn't clear enough what the compile options were.
The test platform in this case is a Juno A57 running Ubuntu.
I actually never turned off -mcpu=cortex-a57 during my testing. I'll k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534
--- Comment #4 from Brian Rzycki ---
Hi James, thank you for taking the time to test this. Unfortunately I can't
post the original code because of its license. The problem is with the
weighting changing enough that at least one pair of if conditi
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: brzycki at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40752
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40752&action=edit
Reduced test-case. Larger scores are better.
I am seein
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79168
--- Comment #5 from Brian Rzycki ---
Hi Jakub, I just manually ran our nightly snapshot script and successfully
built a GCC AArch64 compiler. The SHA used was d889d15 which contains your fix
in its history.
I have verified this as fixed. Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79168
--- Comment #2 from Brian Rzycki ---
Hello Jakub. Thank you for the fast response. We have verified that gcc with
your patch successfully compiles. We haven't done any real testing on the
compiler itself though.
I think it'd be good to push that
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: brzycki at gmail dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
