https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
We can backport Hao Chen's patch, it has proven to cause no problems at all.
We don't normally backport patches that aren't bugfixes, but we could do it
for important enough things (we did it for most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
We could backport Haochen's patch to AT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Well, the problem is that we still generate suboptimal code on GCC 11. I don't
know whether we want to address that or not.
I suppose we aren't going to backport Haochen's lovely patch for sign
extensions,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Thanks for the detective work!
So the variable expansion code could be improved to handle sign extensions
better (or maybe zero extensions as well?) In either case that won't help
rs6000 much anymore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Btw, -ftree-loop-vectorize -fvect-cost-model=cheap makes this 8 vectors per
iteration (and very-cheap doesn't vectorise it). Maybe overkill, esp. when
you look at the tail code, but that 8 vector core
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Nicholas Piggin from comment #0)
> I may be unaware of a constraint of C standard here, but maintaining the two
> base addresses seems pointless,
This is an ordering problem. The unroller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #5 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
Oh I should have specified, -O2 is the only option. If I add
-fvariable-expansion-in-unrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #3 from Nicholas Piggin ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
Oh I should have specified, -O2 is the only option. If I add
-fvariable-expansion-in-unrol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
As expected, I get similar code when compiling either for P9 or P10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102062
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
12 matches
Mail list logo
