https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63875
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson ---
Ping. This is still an issue on trunk (as of today at r220345).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson ---
Missed that one, I will backport to 4.8.
Teresa
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
The following test case warns about a variable that is set but unused. The
parameter is unused when the argument pack has nothing in it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
--- Comment #4 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:27 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson ---
Google ref b/18344370
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
The following test fails with trunk:
$ cat bug_test.cc
#include
#include
#include
std::string __attribute__ ((noinline)) comp_test_write() {
std::string data;
for (int i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #29 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
> wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>>
>> --- Comment #27 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #25 from Teresa Johnson ---
Unfortunately I can't reproduce this failure. Here's what I did:
In my gcc source:
% svn update -r r216039
In my build directory:
% ~/gcc_trunk_7/configure
--prefix=/usr/local/google/home/tejohnson/gcc_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #24 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
> With r216039, I still got
>
> ../../src-trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #21 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/04/14 13:29, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff, what is intended here - should we not be threading both of these
>>> paths?
>>
>>
>> I have a patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> I'm going to finish testing my patch, which passes regular
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap + regression tests. I am still
> trying to get the l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #17 from Teresa Johnson ---
I'm going to finish testing my patch, which passes regular
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap + regression tests. I am still
trying to get the lto profiledbootstrap to work. I found some
workarounds for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> Thanks to H.J. for the test cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #15 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Thanks to H.J. for the test case, I have reproduced the issue. It
>> exposed two separate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #14 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Thanks to H.J. for the test case, I have reproduced the issue. It
> exposed two separate problems. Cc'ing Honza and Jeff for input on the
> profile c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #13 from Teresa Johnson ---
Thanks to H.J. for the test case, I have reproduced the issue. It
exposed two separate problems. Cc'ing Honza and Jeff for input on the
profile count and jump threading issues, respectively.
The first is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson ---
Feel free to email it to me at tejohn...@google.com.
Teresa
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:47 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:33 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #5)
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:21 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
> r215830 introduced:
>
> /* Scale up the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
Presumably the fix for PR63422 (r215822) fixed the initial problem,
but r215830 must have introduced this. Will take a look right now.
Teresa
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wro
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
This problem showed up in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422,
where a new assert introduced in jump threading triggered because of insane
profile counts coming in. The LTO test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
My new code is exposing an upstream profile count insanity that is being
introduced by the copyrename2 phase.
The new freqs_to_counts_path routine is invoked only when we don't have profile
info, and in thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
Thanks for the test case. Reproduced and looking at it.
Teresa
|Added
>
> CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
> dot ethz
>| |.ch, tejohnson at google dot
> com
>
> --- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele ethz.ch> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62265
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:38 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
>
> --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
Thanks for the quick fix. Do you know if this fixed the issue I
reported in comment #2 (seg fault in a similar test case)?
Teresa
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:11 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
The following test case does not call the default constructor when expected:
/
#include
struct Foo {
int value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #13 from Teresa Johnson ---
Jeff,
Thanks for the fix! Confirming that it does indeed fix the application
issues we hit.
Teresa
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:54 PM, law at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:46 PM, ppluzhnikov at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
>
> --- Comment #4 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson ---
Created attachment 32710
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32710&action=edit
t.C.078t.dom1
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
Created attachment 32709
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32709&action=edit
t.C
We ran into a runtime failure that was tracked down to the jump threading
performed during t
|Added
>
> CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
>| |tejohnson at google dot com
>
> --- Comment #3 from Yury Gribo
: UNCONFIRMED
>> Severity: normal
>> Priority: P3
>> Component: rtl-optimization
>> Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
>> Reporter: shenhan at google dot com
>> CC: llozano at google dot com,
Version: 4.8.3
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P3
> Component: rtl-optimization
> Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
> Reporter: shenhan at google dot com
> CC: llozano at goog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41852
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
I cannot reproduce this bug. The original test case cannot be used
because the gcda format is old, but I also cannot reproduce a problem
using the sms-3.c test either. I just looked at the haifa-sched.c
sourc
---
>> CC||tejohnson at google dot com
>>
>> --
>> You are receiving this mail because:
>> You are on the CC list for the bug.
Here is the patch that fixes it, and I am currently regression testing:
Teresa
201
?id=59542
>
> Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
> CC| |tejohnson at google dot com
>
> --
> You a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
I can't reproduce this one using your source/profles and command line
(using a trunk updated to head last night plus my fix for the assert).
I verified that splitting is kicking in, but no error occurs. Do yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
This seems like a separate issue - can you give me a reproducer? The
attached minimized test case does not hit this.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> I will take a look and report back. -freorder-blocks-and-partition was
> recently enabled by default, which presumably exposed this issue.
The issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527
--- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson ---
I will take a look and report back. -freorder-blocks-and-partition was
recently enabled by default, which presumably exposed this issue.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:21 AM, octoploid at yandex do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:10 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The ICE with -freorder-blocks-and-par
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:10 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
>
> --- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
> Reproduced with cr
ler outgoing_edges_match
should avoid calling old_insns_match_p on these instruction types.
Teresa
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:41 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59233
>
> --- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
> On Thu, Nov 21,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #23 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:06 AM, ubizjak at gmail dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> --- Comment #22 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #19 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> --- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson ---
> Just hit this same error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson ---
Just hit this same error with cpu2006 bzip2. The .i and .gcda are attached.
Reproduce with:
gcc -c -fprofile-use -O2 blocksort.i
blocksort.c:1136:1: internal compiler error: in edge_badness, at
ipa-inline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #17 from Teresa Johnson ---
Created attachment 31155
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31155&action=edit
blocksort.gcda
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson ---
Created attachment 31154
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31154&action=edit
blocksort.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #11 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, pa...@matos-sorge.com
> wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>>
>> --- Comment #9 from Paulo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM, pa...@matos-sorge.com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> --- Comment #9 from Paulo J. Matos ---
> I didn't manage to reproduce the bug yet. With
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
--- Comment #4 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:05 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58862
>
> Teresa Johnson changed:
>
>W
,
||tejohnson at google dot com
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
I hit the "verify_flow_info: Wrong probability of edge" error in a
profiledbootstrap. I triaged this down to the following commit,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and also reproduced the failure
listed in PR rtl-optimization/58220 and verified the fix with it.
Committed as r201941:
Index: final.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:49 AM, kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
>
> --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
Thanks, and sorry for the trouble.
Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test
it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but
I didn't get the failure on that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:23 PM, ccoutant at google dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
>
> --- Comment #7 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
>> Index: final.c
>> =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #6 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
>>
>> --- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58033
--- Comment #4 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:40 PM, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58033
>
> --- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
> Created attachment 30574
> --> http://gcc.gn
gcc dot gnu.org
> CC: steven at gcc dot gnu.org, tejohnson at google dot com
> Target: sh*-*-*
>
> On SH, compiling the following code with -O2
>
> #include
>
> std::bitset<32> make_bits (void)
> {
> std::bitset<32> r;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
>
> --- Comment #4 from Cary Coutant ---
> The problem is a lexical block in main() th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57451
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
Yes, there is a NOTE_INSN_SWITCH_TEXT_SECTIONS note emitted for functions
that are split. In the attached test case the symbol-symbol expression is
being generated across the split boundary of main(), and I c
,
||tejohnson at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson ---
Cary, any ideas on how to fix this issue? Thanks, Teresa
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: tejohnson at google dot com
Created attachment 30214
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30214&action=edit
pr49115.C
While fixing problems with -f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
16:24:33 UTC ---
My powerpc bootstrap completed successfully. Sent patch out for review.
Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:03 AM, sje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #10 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
15:41:14 UTC ---
Hi Steve!
Can you confirm whether the patch I just sent also fixes the mips failure?
Thanks,
Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:40 AM, sje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
>
only additional use of combine_probabilities in my patch, so there
shouldn't be any other issues like this. Will send the patch for
review once the bootstrap completes.
Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:10 AM, tejohnson at google dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
15:10:50 UTC ---
Thanks for the test case - reproduced with my stage1 compiler on gcc110. Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:02 AM, dje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
15:01:51 UTC ---
Couldn't reproduce on x86_64, so I am on gcc110 trying to get a
bootstrap compiler build going to reproduce. Also see the dup with
testcase (again doesn't reproduce on x86_64,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson 2013-05-03
05:13:07 UTC ---
Investigating. I am not sure I have access to a powerpc64, but I am
trying to trigger it on x86_64.
Teresa
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:16 PM, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2013-04-30
05:43:06 UTC ---
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, ubizjak at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
>
> --- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-29
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #9 from Teresa Johnson 2013-04-29
17:24:42 UTC ---
It does fix the issue I had in this test case. But theoretically can't
this pattern still generate an MMX reference in some cases? And I see
other instances of the same constra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #22 from Teresa Johnson 2013-01-11
18:18:48 UTC ---
Hi Honza,
I ran a number of experiments at different thresholds, and found that
performance starts dropping pretty quickly as the working set
threshold is dropped, even to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-21
16:26:17 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:15 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-21 16:15:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #21 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
17:35:08 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-12-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
17:07:51 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:39 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
16:44:21 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 2012-12-18 17:25:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
15:07:54 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:07 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener 2012-12-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #13 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-19
06:49:50 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:41 PM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
22:49:20 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:41 PM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #11 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #9 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
16:31:08 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:25 AM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
16:24:13 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
>
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2012-12-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55734
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-18
15:49:03 UTC ---
In that thread, I had asked:
---
If you prefer, I can simply inline the popcount/clz functionality into
gcov-io.c directly (or at least when not using recent versions of
GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #11 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
22:16:19 UTC ---
Do you happen to know what it was with lto/pgo before the change? Should be
roughly equivalent to hot-bb-count-ws-permille=970 from what I saw in your
profiles. What size incr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
18:23:08 UTC ---
Dumb mistake in my previous fix to the lto support. Here is the patch
that fixes it, I will submit for review after regression testing
completes:
Index: lto-cgraph.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
15:50:05 UTC ---
Reproduced. Looks like somehow my fix to stream this through LTO is
not working properly. I see that the min count is valid when
generating the .o file, but goes to zero when w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
15:02:55 UTC ---
Ok, I will download tramp3d-v4 right now and see what is going on. Can
you send me the full set of options you are using to compile it?
Teresa
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
14:49:19 UTC ---
Hi Markus,
Are you sure you have my subsequent fixes patched in, to make sure the
histogram is getting streamed through the LTO files? This was the
behavior I saw when I was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55674
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-13
14:45:01 UTC ---
I'm really surprised that using --param hot-bb-count-ws-permille=950 didn't
help, since even fewer things should look hot enough to inline than before the
revision.
Would yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #158 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-12
18:59:56 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:43 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
>
> --- Comment #157 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2012-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #156 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-12
00:00:17 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
>
> --- Comment #155 from Markus Trippelsdorf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #154 from Teresa Johnson 2012-12-11
19:30:53 UTC ---
What was the size of the gcc lto/pgo binary before the change to use the
histogram? Was it close to the gcc 4.7 lto/pgo size? In that case that is a
very large increase, ~25%
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
