https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue May 24 11:32:35 2016
New Revision: 236635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/69857 Remove bogus early return false; in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #8)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #7)
> > Yes, that's an approach that can be taken. Once such a case is found, you
> > could also try using a red
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #10 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #9)
> Yes, would you like to propose a patch to gcc-patches?
No thanks.
> Or shall I do it?
I would very much prefer that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #7)
> Yes, that's an approach that can be taken. Once such a case is found, you
> could also try using a reducer program like creduce to create a small
> testcase appropri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, that's an approach that can be taken. Once such a case is found, you could
also try using a reducer program like creduce to create a small testcase
appropriate for the testsuite.
Removing t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> We'd need a testcase that shows a regression resulting from this code not
> being run i.e. code that became worse after r197530 (or wrong code or an
> ICE) and is fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We'd need a testcase that shows a regression resulting from this code not being
run i.e. code that became worse after r197530 (or wrong code or an ICE) and is
fixed by removing that "return false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Agree that gcc should warn here.
> As for the suspicious return itself, from what I can see it has the effect
> of overly restricting generation of the LDRD/STRD ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCO
12 matches
Mail list logo
