https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Bug 50955 depends on bug 52272, which changed state.
Bug 52272 Summary: [4.9/5/6 regression] Performance regression of 410.bwaves on
x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #19)
not about an iv use appearing in memory reference while not marked as
address_p, and can be fixed by revise the existing check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
amker.cheng at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #19 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com ---
not about an iv use appearing in memory reference while not marked as
address_p, and can be fixed by revise the existing check condition, is
it true?
No, even expressing an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
I am running into a similar situation with a modified 4.7 on
mips64-linux-gnu (configured to use the Octeon2 instructions which has a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am running into a similar situation with a modified 4.7 on mips64-linux-gnu
(configured to use the Octeon2 instructions which has a load instruction which
does base+index [or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:43:06 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 6 13:43:03 2012
New Revision: 183934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183934
Log:
2012-02-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
14:02:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It looks like IVOPTs fails to consider a candidate for the use inquestion
and thus, after choosing the final IV set ends up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du duyuehai at gmail dot com 2011-11-03 06:24:58
UTC ---
Let me see if i understand you correctly, you are saying that there isn't an
easy way to fix it without hurting the performance(either consider less IV
candidates
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-11-03 07:51:25 UTC ---
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, duyuehai at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du duyuehai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at kam dot mff.cuni.cz rakdver at kam dot
mff.cuni.cz 2011-11-03 08:06:52 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du duyuehai at gmail dot com 2011-11-03
06:24:58
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-03
08:18:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #6 from Yuehai Du duyuehai at gmail dot com 2011-11-03
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02
12:48:23 UTC ---
The candidate
candidate 15
depends on 3
var_before ivtmp.161
var_after ivtmp.161
incremented before exit test
type unsigned int
base
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-02
13:09:40 UTC ---
It looks like IVOPTs fails to consider a candidate for the use inquestion
and thus, after choosing the final IV set ends up rewriting that use into
this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at
22 matches
Mail list logo