https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117012
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116576
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116275
--- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 58868
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58868&action=edit
proposed patch
Here's my proposed fix (the first of two patches) that resolves the ICE with
the testcase. The p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116275
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114661
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115749
--- Comment #12 from Roger Sayle ---
I owe Kim an apology. It does appear that modern x86_64 processors perform
(many) multiplications faster than the latencies given in the Intel/AMD/Agner
Fog documentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115756
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
--- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 58567
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58567&action=edit
proposed patch
Here's my proposed patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115751
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-07-02
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113673
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|roger at nextmovesoftware dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109618
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115565
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-20
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115489
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from Rog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115021
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[14/15 regression] |[14 regression] unnecessary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115397
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115478
--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle ---
Hi Jeff, many thanks for looking into this/assigning the PR to yourself.
I'd suggest that the fix is to add a define_code_iterator to aarch64.md
called any_or_plus matching the definition in i386.md.
(define_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115397
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115351
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|roger at nextmovesoftware dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115351
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115161
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106060
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115021
--- Comment #2 from Roger Sayle ---
Here's a reduced test case that should be unaffected by the pending changes to
how V8QI shifts are expanded. Note that the final "t -= t4" is required to
convince the register allocator to "spill".
typedef s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115021
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78947
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85559
Bug 85559 depends on bug 78947, which changed state.
Bug 78947 Summary: sub-optimal code for (bool)(int ? int : int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78947
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113832
--- Comment #5 from Roger Sayle ---
I'm trying to confirm that there are actually widening multiplications in
464.h264ref (on aarch64), but if anyone's already done an analysis of what
might be causing these performance swings, please do post (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113673
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43644
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97756
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.0
Summary|[11/12/13/14/15 Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111701
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767
--- Comment #5 from Roger Sayle ---
Another interesting (simpler) case of -ffast-math pessimization is:
void foo(_Complex double *c)
{
for (int i=0; i<16; i++)
c[i] += __builtin_complex(1.0,0.0);
}
Again without -ffast-math we vectori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114544
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-04-07
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114552
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114284
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114187
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114187
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-03-01
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106060
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
--- Comment #5 from Roger Sayle ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113690
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[13/14 Regression] ICE: in |[13 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112508
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113764
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[X86] Generates lzcnt when |[X86] __builtin_clz
|bs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113764
--- Comment #2 from Roger Sayle ---
Investigating further, the thinking behind GCC's current behaviour can be found
in Agner Fog's instruction tables; on many architectures BSR is much slower
than LZCNT.
Legacy AMD: BSR=4 cycles, LZCNT=2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113673
--- Comment #4 from Roger Sayle ---
The identified patch implements += the same way as |=. Presumably a version of
the test case replacing "m += *data++;" with "m |= *data++;" would be more
useful at identifying a patch that actually changed EH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113832
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113764
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113759
--- Comment #9 from Roger Sayle ---
Many thanks Jakub. Sorry again for the inconvenience.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113720
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113690
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113701
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113560
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #14 from Roger Sayle ---
My apologies for not keeping folks updated on my thinking. Following Oleg's
feedback, I've decided to slim down my proposed fix to the bare minimum, and
postpone the other rtx_costs improvements until GCC 15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|roger at nextmoves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113560
--- Comment #6 from Roger Sayle ---
In the .optimized dump, we have:
__int128 unsigned __res;
__int128 unsigned _12;
...
__res_11 = in_2(D) w* 184467440738;
_12 = __res_11 & 18446744073709551615;
__res_7 = _12 * 100;
So the first mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113560
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #10 from Roger Sayle ---
Hi Oleg. Great question. The "speed" parameter passed to rtx_costs, and
address_cost indicates whether the middle-end is optimizing for peformance, and
interested in the nummber of cycles taken by each inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
--- Comment #8 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 57190
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57190&action=edit
proposed patch
Proposed patch to provide a sane/saner set of rtx_costs for SH. There's plenty
more that could b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113542
Bug ID: 113542
Summary: gcc.target/arm/bics_3.c regression after change for
pr111267
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113533
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-22
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91681
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
--- Comment #10 from Roger Sayle ---
A revised and improved patch has been posted for review at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/643062.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-14
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106060
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112992
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
--- Comment #7 from Roger Sayle ---
Very many thanks to Jeff Law for pointing me to fwprop. The following simple
patch also fixes this regression.
diff --git a/gcc/fwprop.cc b/gcc/fwprop.cc
index 0c588f8..cbba44e 100644
--- a/gcc/fwprop.cc
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
--- Comment #6 from Roger Sayle ---
Sorry for the delay in replying/answering Jakub's questions/comments. Yes,
using a define_insn_and_split in the backend fixes/works around the issue (and
I agree your implementation/refinement in comment #5 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113336
Bug ID: 113336
Summary: libatomic (testsuite) regressions on
armv6-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113231
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113231
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #19 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 56930
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56930&action=edit
proposed patch
And now for a patch that does (or should) work. This even contains an
optimization, we middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #18 from Roger Sayle ---
Please ignore comment #17, the above patch is completely bogus/broken.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
--- Comment #17 from Roger Sayle ---
I think this patch might resolve the problem (or move it somewhere else):
diff --git a/gcc/expr.cc b/gcc/expr.cc
index 9fef2bf6585..218bca905f5 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.cc
+++ b/gcc/expr.cc
@@ -6274,10 +6274,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112992
Bug ID: 112992
Summary: Inefficient vector initialization using
vec_duplicate/broadcast
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
--- Comment #12 from Roger Sayle ---
Patch proposed (actually two alternatives proposed) at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636203.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110551
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.5|14.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91865
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112380
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at
nextmovesoftware dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50755
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112298
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112103
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
--- Comment #3 from Roger Sayle ---
This patch addresses the regression, but probably isn't the correct fix.
The issue is that the backend now has a way of representing the concatenation
of two registers (for example, TI is constructed for two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111267
--- Comment #2 from Roger Sayle ---
Created attachment 56162
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56162&action=edit
proof-of-concept patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110551
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111812
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110701
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17886
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111519
--- Comment #2 from Roger Sayle ---
Complicated. Things have gone wrong before the strlen pass which is given:
_73 = e;
_72 = *_73;
...
*_73 = prephitmp_23;
d = _72;
Here the assignment to *_73 overwrites the value of f (at *e) which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71749
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91251
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91591
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83409
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
--- Comment #39 from Roger Sayle ---
My apologies for dropping the ball on this patch (series)... My only access to
PowerPC hardware is/was via the GCC compile farm, which complicates things.
Shortly after David's approval, Segher enquired wheth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106222
Roger Sayle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 420 matches
Mail list logo
