https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #15 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 28 19:33:22 2019
New Revision: 270004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89865
* config/i386/i386.md (RMW operat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > Note, the r264897 change to the testcase was clearly bogus, because then the
> > testcase is really useless, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I suggest we apply my LEA patch (that is a clear improvement), and
> recategorize the PR as a RA regression.
Agreed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Note, the r264897 change to the testcase was clearly bogus, because then the
> testcase is really useless, the intent of the testcase was to check that all
> (but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> (this is -Os, so that is what matters), r264897 made the generated code
> worse, then r265398 reverted it to the previously generated code and r266385
> made it ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, the r264897 change to the testcase was clearly bogus, because then the
testcase is really useless, the intent of the testcase was to check that all
(but the 8) peepholes did the right thing and there ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, but that is only because r264897 adjusted the expected counts from 8 to
47/57 :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I don't see the testcase FAILing on i?86 though, just on x86_64, and there
> starting with Oct 2x (20th is still ok, 23rd fails, so likely r265398).
The testcase i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see the testcase FAILing on i?86 though, just on x86_64, and there
starting with Oct 2x (20th is still ok, 23rd fails, so likely r265398).
Let me have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Jakub seems to be the author of gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
16 matches
Mail list logo
