On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:08:54PM +, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> > I was worried this patch would prevent too many other optimisations,
>> > so I looked into better options. I didn't find any. I tested the
>> > effects of the patch on 31
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:08:54PM +, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > I was worried this patch would prevent too many other optimisations,
> > so I looked into better options. I didn't find any. I tested the
> > effects of the patch on 31 architectures (building GCC and then Linux
> Thanks very much for
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I was worried this patch would prevent too many other optimisations,
> so I looked into better options. I didn't find any. I tested the
> effects of the patch on 31 architectures (building GCC and then Linux
Thanks very much fo
Hi!
I was worried this patch would prevent too many other optimisations,
so I looked into better options. I didn't find any. I tested the
effects of the patch on 31 architectures (building GCC and then Linux
with it; 6 errored out building the kernel). There were exactly zero
differences in gen
Hi!
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:47:51AM +, Bin Cheng wrote:
> After investigation, I believe PR78559 is a combine issue revealed by tree
> level change. Root causes is after replacing CC register use in
> undobuf.other_insn, its REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV notes are no longer valid because
> meanin
Hi,
After investigation, I believe PR78559 is a combine issue revealed by tree
level change. Root causes is after replacing CC register use in
undobuf.other_insn, its REG_EQUAL/REG_EQUIV notes are no longer valid because
meaning of CC register has changed in i2/i3 instructions by combine. For
