https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #18 from Anton Blanchard ---
Urgh too early in the morning for me. PR71866 created, with the correct
backtrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Anton Blanchard from comment #16)
> I'm seeing a lockup in gcc with this patch on ppc64le. Run as:
>
> gcc -O2 -c testcase.i
Can you file a new bug for this? Also your backtrace is just for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #16 from Anton Blanchard ---
I'm seeing a lockup in gcc with this patch on ppc64le. Run as:
gcc -O2 -c testcase.i
It gets stuck in:
#0 0x3fffb7e5e3e8 in __waitpid_nocancel ()
at ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:84
#1 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Anton Blanchard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at samba dot org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Bug 70159 depends on bug 23286, which changed state.
Bug 23286 Summary: Missed code hoisting optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23286
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 12 13:32:04 2016
New Revision: 238242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-12 Steven Bosscher
Richard Biener
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016, hiraditya at msn dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
>
> AK changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
AK changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hiraditya at msn dot com
--- Comment #11 from AK -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, spop at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
>
> --- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop ---
> Created attachment 37927
> --> https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop ---
Created attachment 37927
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37927&action=edit
patch for hoisting expressions
Updated the patch from PR23286 to hoist the redundant expressions:
:
inv_4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Pop ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Note this is both a hoisting and a sinking issue.
> Hoisting should happen before sinking.
> LLVM looks like it only implements sinking.
You are right: LLVM does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this is both a hoisting and a sinking issue.
Hoisting should happen before sinking.
LLVM looks like it only implements sinking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to 5738.
Try with -Os and you will see the RTL non PRE based GCSE does most of the job:
foo_p:
fmovs4, 1.0e+0
fdivs0, s4, s0
fsubs1, s1, s3
fsubs2, s2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh and bug 23286.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
"Related to bug 5738."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop ---
Right, with -Ofast it be able to optimize away the branch or selects.
The original benchmark had something more complex than fadd to use the tmin and
tmax results. Here is one more test using the results in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
19 matches
Mail list logo
