https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #41 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3ea6d0ed6860e4f1d8f609c26de9d9a7f7a9ad2d
commit r11-10022-g3ea6d0ed6860e4f1d8f609c26de9d9a7f7a9ad2d
Author: Michael Meiss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #40 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6b1ac334ac61f72536f3479f735ea3514f1309d
commit r12-8353-ge6b1ac334ac61f72536f3479f735ea3514f1309d
Author: Michael Meissn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #39 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa33a2d866c0f3f2f9b3cb26f8ff2074bcd169b4
commit r10-10596-gaa33a2d866c0f3f2f9b3cb26f8ff2074bcd169b4
Author: Michael Meiss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #38 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fb654f77d5292864ef57040f7bc01d7a975f6d9
commit r13-157-g2fb654f77d5292864ef57040f7bc01d7a975f6d9
Author: Michael Meissner
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #37 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #36)
> Mike had one patch [1] under review for the power8 fusion piece, moving this
> under his name. Thanks Mike!
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|linkw at gcc dot gnu.org |meissner at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #35 from Kewen Lin ---
> I don't think the r12-6219 commit qualifies for backporting. What about the
> comment#31 patch? Does it address the issue for Eigen on the branches?
Got it. comment#31 patch can only address the mismatch i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #33)
> Since this issue affects Eigen building on Power and we have GCC11 and GCC10
> to support Power10 MMA, one of our colleagues is wondering if we can
> backport all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #32 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #31)
> Created attachment 52383 [details]
> Simpler patch to fix the problem with power8-fusion.
>
> This patch just ignores the -mpower8-fusion option in the callee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #31 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 52383
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52383&action=edit
Simpler patch to fix the problem with power8-fusion.
This patch just ignores the -mpower8-fusion option in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #30 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to pc from comment #27)
> There was a commit related to this bug, but it is still in ASSIGNED state,
> so I'm not sure if this was to be considered "fixed", but...
>
> Chip discovered that, with a bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.0
Known to work|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #28 from Dan Horák ---
comment #27 matches our experience in Fedora, still a build issue in Eigen with
gcc12 and LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #26 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Kewen Lin :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0fc60c183358be2f2003b94226ab49e21c585b13
commit r12-6219-g0fc60c183358be2f2003b94226ab49e21c585b13
Author: Kewen Lin
Date: Tue Jan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #25 from Kewen Lin ---
Status update:
>
> The fusion related flags have been considered in the posted patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html.
>
It's still being ping-ed for review since it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #24 from Chip Kerchner ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #23)
> Hi Chip, I can reproduce this error with trunk. With some investigation, I
> think it's not duplicated of this PR, some information restoring seems wrong
> when lt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #23 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Chip Kerchner from comment #22)
> (In reply to Chip Kerchner from comment #21) - Forgot one line of code
> > --
> > #pragma GCC target "cpu=power10"
> > int main() {
> > float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #22 from Chip Kerchner ---
(In reply to Chip Kerchner from comment #21) - Forgot one line of code
> --
> #pragma GCC target "cpu=power10"
> int main() {
> float *b;
> __vector_quad c;
> __builtin_mma_disasse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #21 from Chip Kerchner ---
I'm also seeing MMA problems with LTO. With this simple program (main.ii)
--
int main() {
float *b;
__vector_quad c;
__builtin_mma_disassemble_acc(b, &c);
return 0;
}
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #20 from Kewen Lin ---
Thanks for the detailed explanation, Mike!
The fusion related flags have been considered in the posted patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578552.html.
One RFC/Patch
https://gcc.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #18 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16)
> >
> > Thanks for the example, it looks useful! Now the field fp_expressions is
> > generic, one target specific summary class seems required then. And not sure
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #17 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 51357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51357&action=edit
Fix some issues in rs6000_can_inline_p
As Martin pointed out, currently function rs6000_can_inline_p just returns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Thanks for the example, it looks useful! Now the field fp_expressions is
> generic, one target specific summary class seems required then. And not sure
> if the users still have interests/senses to furt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #12)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > As of HTM it would make the testcase a user error - when using -mcpu=power10
> > it would require building with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #14 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Note that x86 uses for example
>
> else if (caller_opts->x_ix86_fpmath != callee_opts->x_ix86_fpmath
>/* If the calle doesn't use FP expressions di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #13 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> OPTION_MASK_P8_FUSION is purely optimization and shouldn't prevent inlining,
> no?
>
> As of HTM it would make the testcase a user error - when using -mcpu=power
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #12 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> As of HTM it would make the testcase a user error - when using -mcpu=power10
> it would require building with -mcpu=power8 -mno-htm?
Or -mcpu=power8 should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
OPTION_MASK_P8_FUSION is purely optimization and shouldn't prevent inlining,
no?
As of HTM it would make the testcase a user error - when using -mcpu=power10 it
would require building with -mcpu=power8 -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin ---
One more reduced test case:
fail cmd: gcc -c -O2 -flto -mcpu=power8
pass cmd: gcc -c -O2 -flto -mcpu=power8 -mno-htm -mno-power8-fusion
--
__attribute__((always_inline)) int foo(int *b) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at linux dot ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
And the OPTION_MASK_P8_FUSION mask is set here:
/* Enable power8 fusion if we are tuning for power8, even if we aren't
generating power8 instructions. Power9 does not optimize power8 fusion
case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat /tmp/basic_op.ii
enum { Unaligned, Aligned };
enum { ColMajor };
enum { ReadOnlyAccessors, DefaultProduct };
template struct traits;
struct accessors_level {
enum { has_direct_acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Chip Kerchner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chip.kerchner at ibm dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
42 matches
Mail list logo
