--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-19 01:27
---
This like the other you filed is not a GCC bug, you are accessing a SSE vector
that is not aligned so you have to use the SSE intrinsic that does unaligned
access.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #15 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-19 01:59 ---
Is the alignment requirement always applicable in all the cases, or just
for gcc-3.4.6 ?
Remember, in this case gcc-4.1.1 produces code which doesn't segfault.
Is it that gcc-4.1.1 optimizes out the failing line ?
Is
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-19 02:06
---
(In reply to comment #15)
Is the alignment requirement always applicable in all the cases, or just
for gcc-3.4.6 ?
It segfaults for me with gcc-4.1.2.
Remember, in this case gcc-4.1.1 produces code which
--- Comment #17 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-19 02:20 ---
Regarding
Is it that gcc-4.1.1 falsely aligns the memory location in question ?
Well it can be 8byte aligned and accidently also 16byte aligned (which does
happen every once in a while).
The original report
--- Comment #8 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-17 01:27 ---
Please see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29874
- another proof that gcc-3.4.6 generates better SSE code than gcc-4.1.1, and
the
proof uses only widely available and well known GPL'ed code.
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-17 01:45 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Please see
Can you try the patch mentioned in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01005.html
(I am about to submit a new version of the patch but it does not change
--- Comment #10 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-17 02:03 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
Please see
Can you try the patch mentioned in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01005.html
(I am about to submit a new version of the patch but
--- Comment #11 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-17 02:09 ---
I'm only a bug master and don't do any work on the compiler anyway, so my
say isn't worth much, but here's my take:
You propose that you can give us 15,000 lines of obfuscated code through which
we will have to dig
--- Comment #12 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-17 02:12 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
down, or to make the code significantly slower. Typically, the bug reports
^^ smaller, sorry W.
--
--- Comment #13 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-17 02:23 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
I'm only a bug master and don't do any work on the compiler anyway, so my
say isn't worth much, but here's my take:
You propose that you can give us 15,000 lines of obfuscated code
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
Component|c |target
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-14 00:53 ---
You should note that 3.4.x is no longer being maintained so this bug will most
likely be closed as fixed as you already mention it works in 4.1.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29818
--- Comment #3 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-14 01:04 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You should note that 3.4.x is no longer being maintained so this bug will most
likely be closed as fixed as you already mention it works in 4.1.1.
That's too bad.
I am developing pretty
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-11-14 01:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I am developing pretty heavy SSE-based code, and performance-wise gcc-3.4.6 is
the best so far. Sorry, I cant' post the code, but here are performance
figures (output of 'time' command):
Then,
--- Comment #5 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-14 01:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
I am developing pretty heavy SSE-based code, and performance-wise gcc-3.4.6
is
the best so far. Sorry, I cant' post the code, but here are performance
figures
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-14 02:29 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
We can make a deal: I obfuscate and publish the code, you guys fix the
bug preserving, if possible, performance.
The code is really complex, and it's not realistic for me to make it
--- Comment #7 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-14 02:54 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
We can make a deal: I obfuscate and publish the code, you guys fix the
bug preserving, if possible, performance.
The code is really complex, and it's not
17 matches
Mail list logo
