http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32664
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32664&action=edit
Proposed patch
Here's a patch (for trunk) that solves the problem for powerpc64le without
regression. If you have
gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Also reproduces on powerpc64le-linux-gnu for 4.10. I'll investigate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Sebastian, sorry for the problems. Please double check that reverting this
patch has fixed your bootstrap issue and mark the bug resolved if so. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:30:21 2014
New Revision: 209430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:30:21 2014
New Revision: 209430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:20:01 2014
New Revision: 209425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert following patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:25:09 2014
New Revision: 209426
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:25:09 2014
New Revision: 209426
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert the following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:20:01 2014
New Revision: 209425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-15 Bill Schmidt
PR target/60839
Revert following patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Per discussion on IRC, we are going to revert this patch on 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10.
This will mean that PR60735 will have to be reopened for a better fix. The
patch seems to leave things in a worse state than pre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57589
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 9 19:42:14 2014
New Revision: 209250
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-09 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r202642
2013-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60735
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:14:01 2014
New Revision: 209116
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209116&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port mainline subversion id 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:10:24 2014
New Revision: 209114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from trunk
2013-04-25 Alan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57052
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:10:24 2014
New Revision: 209114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from trunk
2013-04-25 Alan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57935
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:05:34 2014
New Revision: 209112
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Apply mainline r207798
2014-02-26 Ala
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58675
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:05:34 2014
New Revision: 209112
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Apply mainline r207798
2014-02-26 Ala
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:02:38 2014
New Revision: 209111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r207699.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60137
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 15:02:38 2014
New Revision: 209111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r207699.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59909
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:42:18 2014
New Revision: 209107
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59844
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:32:32 2014
New Revision: 209105
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209105&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Back port from mainline
2014-01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56843
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:29:23 2014
New Revision: 209104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2013-04-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:05:08 2014
New Revision: 209095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-04 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r201750.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 2 22:07:30 2014
New Revision: 209040
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209040&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-04-02 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/60733
* gi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
The logic for placement of initializers for PHI candidates is a bit wrong.
They should be placed at the end of the feeding block for the PHI. Currently
they can end up being placed too early, as in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60733
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ok, will have a look today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Mar 17 15:31:43 2014
New Revision: 208620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-03-17 Mikael Pettersson
Committed by Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57569
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Mar 17 15:31:43 2014
New Revision: 208620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-03-17 Mikael Pettersson
Committed by Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32361
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32361&action=edit
Dump before complete unrolling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32362
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32362&action=edit
Dump after complete unrolling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
The problem is actually introduced much earlier, during the cunrolli (complete
unroll inner) pass. I'm attaching dumps from 055t.copyrename2 and
056t.cunrolli to show what happens. Prior to unrolling, we have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, thanks, I didn't see that. I will track down where the bogus barrier is
being introduced. Thanks for the help!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32357
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32357&action=edit
Second half of test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32356
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32356&action=edit
First half of test case
Sorry, have to split the test case into two pieces; please catenate to
reproduce.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32355
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32355&action=edit
Dump after bb-reorder
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Host: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60533
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 32354
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32354&action=edit
Dump before bb-reorder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Mikael, thanks very much. I'll be happy to commit on your behalf once the
patch is approved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hi Mikael,
Indeed, your patch fixes my problem as well. Do you have plans to push this
upstream? It would be helpful if we could merge this from gcc-4_8-branch into
ibm/gcc-4_8-branch for an upcoming delive
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57936
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> > This may be now fixed ...
>
> I believe it is! Nice work. I don't see vect-96.c failing anymore on
> r207423 o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> This may be now fixed ...
I believe it is! Nice work. I don't see vect-96.c failing anymore on r207423
of trunk. The last spectester result we have is from 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50181
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50180
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
spawn /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/xgcc -B/home/wschmidt/gcc
/build/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/ /home/wschmidt/gcc/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/testsu
ite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c -fno-diagnostics-show-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Initial news is not good -- I am seeing a lot of ICEs go by as the testing
proceeds, including in vect-96.c and vect-42.c.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, testing in progress.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hi Richi,
Passes bootstrap on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and fixes this test, but breaks
two others:
57,60c57,68
< FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an
unaligned access" 1
<
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Richi -- yes, I'll give this a try later today (lots of meetings in the
way but I'll get to it sooner or later).
Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
vect-96.c is still broken per
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-10/msg02115.html.
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "Vectorizing an unaligned
access" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56843
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 21 21:40:14 2013
New Revision: 203910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203910&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2013-10-21 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2013-04-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #41 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, Martin!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57993
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
I missed a couple of candidate replacements in the previous fix; these are
fixed in r201466.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt ---
Martin's patch bootstrapped on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yep, that's terrific. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #22)
> We should be very wary of generating unaligned accesses during optimization
> for targets that define SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. And note that most
> architectures s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #21 from Bill Schmidt ---
My only comment on the patch would be to please add commentary indicating why
the change is being made, and referencing this PR. Something along the lines
of:
/* Ensure the memory reference carries the min
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
After thinking it over some more, I think you are right, Martin. We should go
ahead with the optimization with the corrected alignment attached to the type.
Please go ahead with your patch. I will run a rou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58010
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
r189527 is probably a red herring. That just changed the cost model to be
turned on by default at -O3. Somebody who's actively working on the vectorizer
should probably have a look at this.
If you want to na
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Excellent! Thanks for the confirmation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Bernd, Mikael, Martin: Could you please test this on your respective targets?
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
===
--- gcc/gimple-ssa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #13)
> Hi,
>
> just one question, how about the -m[no-]unaligned-access option?
>
> If -munaligned-access had been given the code was almost right,
> I mean AFAIK ldr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
...which apparently is not quite right, since the candidates still appear in
the table. Hm. But you get the idea -- do the check earlier.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hi Martin,
Your assumptions are correct, but I'm not sure this is the best place to handle
it. It looks like what you are doing is replacing one already correct memory
reference with another, both of which w
||2013-08-01
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
This shouldn't be too hard to fix. Looks like we are missing a check for
possibly unaligned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
I'll investigate. It may be a day or two before I can get to it, but this is
pretty clearly my issue.
Thanks,
Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
I rewrote the test case to use the IBM vector extensions and ran it through
xlc. The generated code shows that xlc addresses the code as expected by the
ABI (and contrary to what's done by gcc). So this adds
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57993
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57993
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
More complete fix submitted as
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01326.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57993
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Here's the patch I'm currently testing, which corrects the problem for this
test case. We'll see how it does on regressions.
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57993
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Looks like the casting is confusing us into replacing PHIs not dominated by the
prospective basis. Shouldn't be too hard to fix.
gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Mine. I'll investigate.
To reproduce this on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu requires adding -fsigned-char
to the compile flags (a clue!).
Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Enabling the code used for MachO/Darwin64 when targeting ABI_AIX/linux produces
much better code:
li 9,144
addis 8,2,.LC1@toc@ha
lvx 0,1,9
ld 10,.LC1@toc@l(8)
addis 8,2,.LC2@toc@ha
ld 9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
The problem is target-specific, in config/rs6000/rs6000.c:
rs6000_function_arg_boundary().
static unsigned int
rs6000_function_arg_boundary (enum machine_mode mode, const_tree type)
{
if (DEFAULT_ABI == ABI_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
The wrong code is introduced during expand. vs.m is computed as
mem(plus(virtual-incoming-args, 72))
with the pad at offset 80, v[0..1] at offset 88, and v[2..3] at offset 96. All
are shown as having alig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
The front end identifies the structure as having the correct alignment. From
the 001t.tu dump:
@2846 record_type name: @2857size: @127 algn: 128
tag : struct fld
, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: bergner at vnet dot ibm.com, dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Host: powerpc64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35308
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57441
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57441
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Pending patch available at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01723.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57441
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57309
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Can you isolate a testcase for the worst loop?
Not yet. It's one of these horrible gargantuan functions (leslie3d is one big
file and fluxi, fluxj, fluxk are all
-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: bergner at vnet dot ibm.com
Host: powerpc*-*-*
Target: powerpc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
I was able to download your code, and I can't reproduce the problem on
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with current trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Of course, there can be secondary effects that cause SLSR to kick in with
different intermediate code, but it's something to consider.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #0)
> when compiled at -O3 . Compiling with 4.8 branch, or 4.9 and -O2 doesn't
> cause this behavior.
I just want to point out that SLSR runs at -O1 and above by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57203
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-08
17:52:20 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this with an x86_64 cross-compiler today, using r198713.
Could you please verify this still fails natively with at least r198709? I
hope the main SLSR bug fix has ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-07
20:13:10 UTC ---
Ah, and thanks for noting the compile warning. I would have expected that to
get caught in bootstrap, odd. I'll fix that.
||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-07
20:11:09 UTC ---
OK, thanks! Current trunk has a half-good fix that I put in this morning. The
proposed patch fixes it the right way
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57192
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-07
18:23:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 30047
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30047
Proposed patch
Hi Joost,
Can you please apply the proposed patch and see if this fixes yo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57154
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-03
17:32:05 UTC ---
Teresa, thanks for the prompt fix!
1301 - 1400 of 1697 matches
Mail list logo
