https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
--- Comment #7 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #6)
> Tamar, Richard, thanks for having a look.
>
> (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #4)
> > This one looks a bit like costing, [...]
>
> I see. So we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
This one looks a bit like costing,
before the patch IVopts had:
:
inv_expr 1: -element_7(D)
inv_expr 2: (signed int) rite_5(D) - (signed int) element_7(D)
and after the patch it generates a few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tnfchris at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
The most simple one: '--target=nvptx-none'. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115934
--- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina ---
Hi, thanks for the report, could you tell me a target triple I can use for
nvptx?
