--- Comment #29 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 19:15
---
Actually I have to reopen this. When playing around on pentiumM or opteron, I
still get roughly 20% regression (6s to 8s), 4.1 and 4.0 scores are about the
same on both machines. For some reason this don't
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 20:55
---
Jeff, you missed the propagation DOM makes that hurts register allocation
indpeendently on whether code sinking does or does not it's job.
In reality code sinking (that appeared in GCC after I reported the bug
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 21:07
---
Subject: Bug 24093
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 31 21:07:29 2005
New Revision: 106291
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=106291
Log:
PR middle-end/24093
* cgraph.c
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 21:10
---
Fixed by my patch (at least works on x86 and originally I reproduced same
failure)
Honza
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 09:59 ---
Subject: Bug 24093
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Oct 30 09:59:16 2005
New Revision: 106014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=106014
Log:
PR middle-end/24093
* ipa-inline.c
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 18:00
---
testing fix that should make legitimize_pic_address correctly decompose the
address. Similar to Steven's but I think it actually works ;)
Index: config/i386/i386.c
--- Comment #14 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 18:18
---
Subject: Bug 24172
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Oct 30 18:14:15 2005
New Revision: 106247
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=106247
Log:
PR tree-optimization/24172
* tree-inline.c
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 21:59
---
Fixed by my patch
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-28 16:32 ---
I've benchmarked the change reducing maximum number of iterations predicted for
loop with constant bounds to 100 and 10 respectively. 100 makes no actual
change to x86-64 SPEC run, 10 seems to result in small
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-27 21:18
---
This is patch I am testing to prevent the sharing. I think it is good idea in
addition to Richard's patch to make fold do it's job too:
void IOException( char);
inline int* dummy( const char* const mode
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-01
15:45 ---
Well, if the exception is never raised, the difference in EH code generation is
probably not an issue.
Reverting the patch is definitly possible (there is nothing dependent on it and
except for one or two
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28
16:48 ---
x86 profiledbootstrap passed for me with mainline
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23396
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28
16:51 ---
The actual problem here is that from combine's point of view the two
alternatives (lea preceeded by loads, or add with memory operand followed by
shift) looks equivalent and previously the shorter sequence
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28
16:52 ---
The actual problem here is that from combine's point of view the two
alternatives (lea preceeded by loads, or add with memory operand followed by
shift) looks equivalent and previously the shorter sequence
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:21 ---
Fixed by Kenny's patch
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:37 ---
There is no recursive inlining happening at least on 4.1 because of overall unit
growth limit is met, so we do remarkably worse compared to 3.4 anyway.
Enabling recursive inlining makes it very active
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:49 ---
The difference in stack usage is caused by ivopts. -fno-ivopts reduces 4.1
stack usage to 12 bytes and 200 bytes with --param inline-unit-growth=100
Especially in the second case ivops should probably
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-23
12:56 ---
Both paches are affecting inlining decisions and it looks like parser somehow
got unlucky on PPC (they didn't cause similar regression on parser for AMD64).
It would be very useful to know what function
: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-01
14:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=9404)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9404action=view)
the simplified testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23181
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-12
23:15 ---
I've commited the patch cited above
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-23
09:09 ---
I am having problems to reproduce it on my machines (i686,x86-64,powerpc64) so
I need some help debugging the problem (at least backtrace to start with)
Honza
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
19:35 ---
This regression should be solved by the patch so I guess I will close it and
move on the new regression :(
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
19:41 ---
How this is supposed to be failing? I do get undefined reference to baz, but
same I do get with my system compiler here and it seem to be right as baz is
extern inline function
--
http
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20635
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27
21:42 ---
I see I forgot my tree with checking enabled. This is obviously latent bug in
handling extern inline functions, I am looking into it.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05
21:53 ---
I don't see much to do without regstack reorg and I don't have time for that :(
--
What|Removed |Added
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: dnovillo at redhat dot com,gcc-bugs
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-25 00:50
---
Created an attachment (id=7406)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7406action=view)
the quicksort loop
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18136
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: dnovillo at redhat dot com,gcc-bugs
--- Additional Comments From hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-25 00:51
---
Created an attachment (id=7407)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7407action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18137
601 - 631 of 631 matches
Mail list logo
