On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:57:34PM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Now that GCC 4.9 branch is opened again and GCC 4.8 branch still open, is
> the following backported patch ok for both branches?
Ok.
> > Ok, what about the following patch and associated ChangeLog entries?
> >
> > 2014-06-24
eud'homme
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:11 AM
> To: 'Jakub Jelinek'
> Cc: Richard Biener; GCC Patches
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR61375: cancel bswap optimization when value
> doesn't fit in a HOST_WIDE_INT
>
> Ok, what about the following patch and ass
E: [PATCH] Fix PR61375: cancel bswap optimization when value
> doesn't fit in a HOST_WIDE_INT
>
> Ok, what about the following patch and associated ChangeLog entries?
>
> 2014-06-24 Thomas Preud'homme
>
> PR tree-optimization/61375
> * tree-ssa-math-o
Ok, what about the following patch and associated ChangeLog entries?
2014-06-24 Thomas Preud'homme
PR tree-optimization/61375
* tree-ssa-math-opts.c (find_bswap_or_nop_1): Cancel optimization if
symbolic number cannot be represented in an unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT.
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
>
> However
> although the original comments on struct symbolic_number implies that
> there is a mapping between host bytes (the bytes of the symbolic number)
> and target bytes, it isn'
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:59 PM
>
> Host could e.g. in theory have CHAR_BIT 32, while target BITS_PER_UNIT 8
> (otherwise bswap pass would give up). sizeof (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT)
> could
> very well be 2 in that case.
In this case the pass
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 04:50:49PM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:37 PM
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:18:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> > > > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> > > > @@ -1741,6 +1741,8 @@ find_bswap
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:37 PM
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:18:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> > > @@ -1741,6 +1741,8 @@ find_bswap_1 (gimple stmt, struct
> symbol
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:18:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> > @@ -1741,6 +1741,8 @@ find_bswap_1 (gimple stmt, struct symbolic_number *n,
> > int limit)
> > if (n->size % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0)
> > retur
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:05 PM
>>
>> Backports are welcome - please post a patch.
>>
>
> Sorry for the delay. Here you are:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:05 PM
>
> Backports are welcome - please post a patch.
>
Sorry for the delay. Here you are:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61375.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61375.c
new
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> When analyzing a bitwise AND with a constant as part of a bitwise OR,
> the bswap pass stores the constant in a int64_t variable without checking
> if it fits. As a result, we get ICE when the constant is an __int128 value.
> This affect
12 matches
Mail list logo
