Hello,
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> > +FAIL: gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c scan-tree-dump-times unrolljam "applying
> >> > unroll and jam" 6
> >>
> >> Hrmpf, I'll have a look :-/ Thanks for noticing.
> >
> > A strange interaction with LIM, which only does something on 32bit, but
> >
Hi Michael,
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>> > > testsuite/
>> > > * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.
>> >
>> > this testcase now FAILs on 32-bit targets (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.11
>> > and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, also reports for
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> > > testsuite/
> > > * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.
> >
> > this testcase now FAILs on 32-bit targets (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.11
> > and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, also
Hello,
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > testsuite/
> > * gcc.dg/unroll-and-jam.c: Add three invalid and one valid case.
>
> this testcase now FAILs on 32-bit targets (seen on i386-pc-solaris2.11
> and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, also reports for i686-pc-linux-gnu and
>
Hi Michael,
> this was still collecting dust on my disk, so here it is. See the
> extensive comment in the patch for what happens, in short invariant IVs
> are affine but still have to be handled more conservative than other
> affine IVs in transformations that reorder instructions. Making
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:36 AM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this was still collecting dust on my disk, so here it is. See the
> extensive comment in the patch for what happens, in short invariant IVs
> are affine but still have to be handled more conservative than other
> affine IVs in
Hi,
this was still collecting dust on my disk, so here it is. See the
extensive comment in the patch for what happens, in short invariant IVs
are affine but still have to be handled more conservative than other
affine IVs in transformations that reorder instructions. Making our
dependence
