https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7216ea6c0cd6c4fef06e9501bd630c3161b14fd
commit r10-9576-gd7216ea6c0cd6c4fef06e9501bd630c3161b14fd
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
Oleg Zaikin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Zaikin ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10)
> But why you are trying to use a more complex branchy expression in C++17
> mode when you already have a more efficient expression as a "fallback"?
>
> Note t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Zaikin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> That needs to be investigated, but it's a problem with the compiler. It has
> nothing to do with countr_one being implemented using countr_zero (as shown
> by th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The generated code hasn't changed between gcc-10 and gcc-11 though, so the
difference must be in the code used to run the benchmarks, not the code under
test.
See https://godbolt.org/z/bWeMen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Oleg Zaikin from comment #6)
> When we switched from C++17-based g++ to C++20-based g++, the performance of
> the whole program decreased by about 7 %. It turned out that the main reason
> is t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Zaikin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> I've removed some redundant code from them, but not changed the indirection
> that this PR complains about. I don't plan to change that.
Thank you! I've got your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Zaikin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Oh, but you didn't enable any optimization at all, so who cares about the
> performance?
Let me give the whole picture. The issue is very close to that from
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've removed some redundant code from them, but not changed the indirection
that this PR complains about. I don't plan to change that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ea62857a3fbdf091ba38cbb62e98dc76b198e2e
commit r11-5922-g2ea62857a3fbdf091ba38cbb62e98dc76b198e2e
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Oh, but you didn't enable any optimization at all, so who cares about the
> performance?
I was thinking the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh, but you didn't enable any optimization at all, so who cares about the
performance?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems like an optimizer bug. There is no way I'm going to repeat the
entire body of countr_zero in countr_one.
14 matches
Mail list logo
