https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Bug 106694 depends on bug 99161, which changed state.
Bug 99161 Summary: Suboptimal SVE code for ld4/st4 MLA code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99161
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f0f7d802482a8958d6cdc72f1fe0c8549db2182
commit r14-6290-g9f0f7d802482a8958d6cdc72f1fe0c8549db2182
Author: Richard Sandiford
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #12 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #10)
> Some of the SME changes I'm working on fix this, but I'm not sure how widely
> we'll be able to use them on non-SME code. Assigning myself just in case.
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #11 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #10)
> Some of the SME changes I'm working on fix this, but I'm not sure how widely
> we'll be able to use them on non-SME code. Assigning myself just in case.
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Richard Sandiford changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect you could get a similar testcase with ARM neon too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 107445 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #6 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #4)
> > No. I am not saying the issue of "movprfx". I am saying the issue of the
> > redundant "mov" instructions.:
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to JuzheZhong from comment #4)
> No. I am not saying the issue of "movprfx". I am saying the issue of the
> redundant "mov" instructions.:
> mov z5.d, z24.d
> mov z4.d, z25.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #4 from JuzheZhong ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is backend issue:
> //(insn 27 31 28 (set (reg/v:VNx2DI 37 v5 [orig:98 v0 ] [98])
> //(unspec:VNx2DI [
> //(reg:VNx2BI 68 p0 [orig:105
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||99161
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||106146
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is backend issue:
//(insn 27 31 28 (set (reg/v:VNx2DI 37 v5 [orig:98 v0 ] [98])
//(unspec:VNx2DI [
//(reg:VNx2BI 68 p0 [orig:105 pg ] [105])
//(plus:VNx2DI (mult:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Severity|normal
16 matches
Mail list logo
