https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #19 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #18 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Fri Apr 8 17:09:09 2016
New Revision: 234832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Unify changes with Android's GCC 4.9 compiler.
Add the followi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #15)
> The commit caused regressions on some benchmarks. Test to reproduce:
> (compilations flags: -Ofast)
>
> int foo (int flag, char *a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Bug 48052 depends on bug 66396, which changed state.
Bug 66396 Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/run-id-pr47593.c
execution test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66396
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 2 10:19:18 2015
New Revision: 224020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48052
* cfgloop.h (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #13 from AK ---
We have an updated patch that works for both the cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01991.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #12 from zaafrani ---
Thank you for the feedback.
We excluded start value that is constant because it is already
working. To our knowledge, only when the start value is unknown and
the loop index type is of unsigned type that we fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
That's an interesting idea - your argument is that if niter analysis was able
to compute an expression for the number of iterations and the cast we are
looking at
is a widening of a BIV then it is ok to ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
zaafrani changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||az.zaafrani at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-03-14 10:08:29 UTC ---
It is interesting to note that in case of fixed size (such as in these trivial
or template examples)
vectorization works also for unsigned int
void loop10( double const * __restr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-03-11 10:26:47 UTC ---
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
>
> --- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente
> 2011-03-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-03-11 10:16:37 UTC ---
what's the probablity to have this fixed?
We depend on a third party matrix library
that is fully templated and uses everywhere "unsigned int"
I made a test with a
sed -i 's/unsig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-10
11:30:58 UTC ---
Well, on x86, in terms of addressing unsigned int (aka long) *is* the widest
type, morally unsigned long long doesn't count.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-03-10 10:54:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the fast reation.
I would like to point out that, at least on x86_64, the only one that does not
work is
"unsigned int"
"unsigned long long (aka size_t)" seems to wor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-10
10:22:48 UTC ---
Thanks for the analysis. I knew about the difference between signed and
unsigned, makes sense. Not knowing in detail the internals of the optimization
the puzzling bit is that types wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
21 matches
Mail list logo
