http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #52 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-04
08:03:08 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Sep 4 08:03:01 2012
New Revision: 190909
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190909
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #50 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
10:54:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
Kaz, if you have some time, could you please gather some CSiBE runtime numbers
for '-mpretend-cmove' and without it?
Here is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #51 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-31
15:50:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #50)
Thanks!
Hmm .. difficult.
There seem to be 17 improvements and 10 dis-improvements, but the
dis-improvements seem heavier. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #49 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-30
22:54:23 UTC ---
Kaz, if you have some time, could you please gather some CSiBE runtime numbers
for '-mpretend-cmove' and without it?
I've compared the result-size of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #48 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-20
20:51:12 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Aug 20 20:51:06 2012
New Revision: 190544
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190544
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #47 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12
22:47:21 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Aug 12 22:47:15 2012
New Revision: 190331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190331
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #46 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-09
15:55:23 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Aug 9 15:55:18 2012
New Revision: 190258
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190258
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #45 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
06:46:40 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 30 06:46:36 2012
New Revision: 189953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189953
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #44 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-26
00:20:05 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Jul 26 00:19:58 2012
New Revision: 189877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189877
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #42 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23
22:57:42 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 23 22:57:36 2012
New Revision: 189797
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189797
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #43 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23
23:29:02 UTC ---
I have noticed that on SH the CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON macro is not defined,
although it seems to be useful for the combine pass.
Another thing that I'd like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #41 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-08
15:03:26 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Jul 8 15:03:21 2012
New Revision: 189360
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189360
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #40 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-02
19:24:03 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 2 19:23:56 2012
New Revision: 189177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189177
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #39 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-30
12:00:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27724
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27724
Another patch
I have noticed that the branch_true and branch_false insns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #38 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
21:36:35 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue May 8 21:36:30 2012
New Revision: 187298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187298
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #37 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-07
20:50:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 27336
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27336
Supplementary patch
As of rev 187217, the pr51244-1.c target testcase fails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #36 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-20
20:33:30 UTC ---
I have created a new PR 52642 for the libstdc++ failures.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #34 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-20
01:04:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
FYI, looking into the libstdc++ failures for sh4-unknown-linux-gnu,
it seems that the call insn was swapped before prologue frame
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #35 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-20
01:45:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
Interesting, thanks! I'll also test your patch and send it around, OK?
OK, thanks!
I'm a bit confused... was the issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #33 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-15
07:52:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
Created attachment 26859 [details]
testresult on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu [trunk revision 185088].
FYI, looking into the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #32 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-11
13:18:12 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Mar 11 13:18:08 2012
New Revision: 185192
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185192
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #29 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-09
08:40:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
Regtest on sh4-unknown-lunix-gnu has been done successfully.
Oleg, your patch is pre-approved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #30 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-09
10:02:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
(In reply to comment #28)
Regtest on sh4-unknown-lunix-gnu has been done successfully.
Oleg, your patch is pre-approved.
Thanks a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #31 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-09
10:36:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 26859
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26859
A test result
testresult on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu [trunk revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #24 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-08
11:11:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Kaz, if you have some time, could you try it out in your setup, too please?
On trunk revision 185088, for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-08
11:13:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 26854
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26854
worked .s file associated_4_good.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #26 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-08
11:16:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 26855
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26855
unworked .s file associated_4_bad.s
I've attached .s files against
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26853|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #28 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-09
01:44:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
Created attachment 26858 [details]
Patch for the patch
Looks all fortran regressions gone away. I'll run full tests
on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-08
01:25:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26853
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26853
Patch for the patch
The attached patch seems to fix the problem.
GCC (C,C++)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
08:26:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 08:13 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
I've tested your latest patch on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu with trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #15 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
08:49:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
I've run the testsuite on rev 184966 (without fortran though), but the
failures
that you've mentioned did not show up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #16 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
09:48:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
I've seen same failures on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu for trunk rev 184971.
With backing r184966 changes out, they went away. Weird.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #17 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
10:36:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 26837
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26837
preprocessed file ctype_configure_char.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #18 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
10:37:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 26838
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26838
worked .s file ctype_configure_char_good.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #19 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
10:38:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 26839
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26839
unworked .s file ctype_configure_char_bad.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #20 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
10:40:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Can we keep the r184966 changes anyways? I will keep an eye on these failures
whether I can reproduce them. If you have some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
11:29:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I've confirmed that 22_locale/ctype/is/char/3.cc doesn't fail
if linking with libstdc++.a which is built with the compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-06
23:42:15 UTC ---
This is a reduced test case:
int test (volatile int* a, int b, int c)
{
a[1] = b != 0;
if (b == 0)
a[10] = c;
return b == 0;
}
with '-O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-05
23:12:27 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Mar 5 23:12:20 2012
New Revision: 184966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184966
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-05
23:37:35 UTC ---
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 08:13 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
I've tested your latest patch on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu with trunk
revision 184872. It looks that some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26812|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-03
12:32:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Created attachment 26812 [details]
Proposed patch
I've tested this patch again against rev 184764 (GCC 4.7) with
make -k check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26191|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-12-30 21:21:14 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #3)
I haven't ran all tests on it yet, but CSiBE shows average code size
reduction
of approx. -0.1% for -m4*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-12-28 15:59:35 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Created attachment 26191 [details]
Proposed patch to improve some of the issues.
The attached patch removes the useless sequence and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-28
22:25:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I haven't ran all tests on it yet, but CSiBE shows average code size reduction
of approx. -0.1% for -m4* with some code size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-12-27 21:26:33 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
BTW, OT, (a != b || a != c) ? b : c could be reduced to b, I think.
Yes, very much so.
It is reduced to return b for -m2, -m2e, -m2a,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-12-27 22:43:11 UTC
---
Created attachment 26191
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26191
Proposed patch to improve some of the issues.
(In reply to comment #1)
[...]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-12-27 23:17:03 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
return a = 0 b = 0 ? c : d;
x = 0 is expanded to the sequence like
ra = not x
rb = -31
rc = ra (neg rb)
T = (rc == 0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-12-28 02:44:05 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
BTW, OT, (a != b || a != c) ? b : c could be reduced to b, I think.
Yes, very much so.
It is reduced to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-22
22:33:43 UTC ---
return (a != b || a != c) ? b : c;
test_func_0_NG and test_func_1_NG cases are related with the target
implementation of cstoresi4.
The middle end
53 matches
Mail list logo
