Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150729 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150729/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 07/28/2015 12:18 PM, Alex Velenko wrote:
On 21/04/15 06:27, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/20/2015 01:09 AM, Shiva Chen wrote:
Hi, Jeff
Thanks for your advice.
can_replace_by.patch is the new patch to handle both cases.
pr43920-2.c.244r.jump2.ori is the original jump2 rtl dump
pr43920-2.c.244r.j
On 07/29/2015 02:42 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>If it matters: We are using gcc-4.7.2 and using the option
>-flto-partition=none.
Ugh. I don't remember the details in gcc 4.7 - the way streaming works has
completely changed since then (well, the basics are still in
tree-streamer-{in,out}.c)
So
On 07/28/2015 01:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
As Jakub said this is not the full story if you factor in type-based
aliasing. Also
you of course have to account for the offset in operand 1.
Okay. We understood the details after a bit of reading.
For statement involving MEM[...], TREE_TYPE (
[Richard wrote:]
Yes, the GIMPLE if-converter should strictly be a vectorization enabler.
If the "new" if-converter produces code that the vectorizer does not
handle (on the target targeted) then it has done a bad job.
Understood [or at least I _think_ I did ;-)] and agreed.
OTOH, there _are_
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
> Of Paulo Matos
> Sent: 29 July 2015 10:12
> To: Andrew Haley; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Expectations for 0/0
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrew Haley [mailto:a...@redha
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
>
> On 07/28/2015 08:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On July 28, 2015 4:37:15 PM GMT+02:00, "Uday P. Khedker"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Biener wrote on Tuesday 28 July 2015 01:12 PM:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Uday Khedke
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Haley [mailto:a...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 28 July 2015 18:38
> To: Paulo Matos; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Expectations for 0/0
>
> On 07/28/2015 04:40 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > The block skips the test for ((unsigned int) xx << 1 == 0 && yy == -
> 1
It's a wrong-code regression in GCC 4.8 to 6.0 where it generates
NEON code with unaligned memory operands, causing alignment faults
at runtime.
