https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 20 14:40:02 2016
New Revision: 232618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/66612
* gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Target Milestone|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I don't see it being fixed any time soon. a fix is likely too intrusive
for stage 4, so yeah let's just xfail it :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On powerpc32, the address candidate doesn't have the period precision to
eliminate conditional iv. That's why bdn is generated.
On powerpc64, the address candidate does have the period precision be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> > stwx 10,8,9 -> *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10
>
> I am wondering how should we handle this failure. Create a new dol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> stwx 10,8,9 -> *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10
I am wondering how should we handle this failure. Create a new doloop test and
change this one testing the optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
stwx 10,8,9 -> *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
I had a look of generated assembly. The old code is as below:
.file "20050830-1.c"
.machine power4
.section".toc","aw"
.section".text"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Likely the change causes difference ivo result, and the wanted instruction not
generated. I shall have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[6 regrssion] FA
14 matches
Mail list logo
