https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521
--- Comment #12 from Ulrich Drepper ---
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:17 PM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> Maybe I miss something, but I would expect to sort all branches in
> emit_case_decision_tree as either predictors can sort branches, or o
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com
When used in switch, __builtin_expect should reorder the comparisons
appropriately. Take this code:
#include
void
f(int ch) {
switch (__builtin_expect(ch, 333)) {
case 3: puts("a&quo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-10-09
11:23:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The new ext/random/simd_fast_mersenne_twister_engine/cons/default.cc testcase
> FAILs on Solaris/SPARC (both 32 and 64-bit):
That's expected. I m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
Bug #: 54855
Summary: Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar
operation on vector element
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #11 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-10-05
15:12:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 28364 [details]
> patch
>
> patch I am testing.
This seems to fix the problem for me, even with the original code and not t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-10-05
13:59:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28363
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28363
Reproducer
Why didn't BZ add the file?...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #1 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-10-05
13:58:21 UTC ---
In case the version number isn't making this clear, I tested this with the
current mainline code. 4.7 probably won't work at all since some of the
features used have been adde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Bug #: 54825
Summary: ICE with vector extension
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #37 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-09-05
13:57:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (though,
> apparently insufficient for i?86 - it should use either __get_cpuid, or
> __get_cpuid_max before __cpuid).
I fixed that. The code now should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #36 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-09-05
13:25:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> What will happen if the assembly accept rdrand, but not the CPU?
The code at runtime checks for the feature bit. There will be no problem.
This is *exc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #20 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-09-04
01:06:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 28127
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28127
Check for rdrand availability
How about this patch? Not sure whether this handles cross-compiling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #15 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-09-02
20:04:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> libstdc++ should check if rdrand is supported by assembler
> before using __builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step.
Every gcc feature should have a test. When you a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #9 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-31
17:46:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Is it clear which are the specific requirements for the various x86* targets?
> I'm wondering if after all it's just matter of updating:
> http://gcc.gnu.or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54419
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-30
20:19:35 UTC ---
The instruction is generated by the compiler. If you try to compile a new
compiler you have to make sure the tools used are recent enough to understand
the output of the compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376
--- Comment #10 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-25
22:54:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28085
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28085
Avoid nested inlined friend functions
This patch fixes the issue for me. It also cleans the code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54376
Bug #: 54376
Summary: incorrect complaint about redefinition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-23
15:41:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Check to see if it solves the problem as well.
I tested it. Seems to work in all cases and does not disturb other
optimizations like comparisons with zer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54299
Bug #: 54299
Summary: Array parameter does not allow for iterator syntax
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54167
Bug #: 54167
Summary: excessive alignment
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-03
02:16:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This patch introduces atomic_fetch_sub:
Seems to work nicely.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-02
14:33:19 UTC ---
One more data point. In a micro-benchmark which uses realistic code used in
production the change from
__sync_sub_and_fetch(var, constant)
to
__sync_add_and_fetch(var, -cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-01
16:06:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Use __atomic_add_fetch and __atomic_fetch_sub in the testcase, and you will
>
> Eh, __atomic_fetch_add.
Yes, but the compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
Bug #: 54087
Summary: __atomic_fetch_add does not use xadd instruction
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53243
Bug #: 53243
Summary: Use vector comparisons for if cascades
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52070
Bug #: 52070
Summary: missing integer comparison optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52034
Bug #: 52034
Summary: __builtin_copysign optimization suboptimal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-01-08
18:56:48 UTC ---
Note, this code appears in gzip and therefore IIRC in specCPU (in
deflate.c:fill_window). Although when compiling gzip myself with that code
embedded in a larger function I cannot ge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
Bug #: 51785
Summary: gets not anymore declared
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492
Bug #: 51492
Summary: vectorizer generates unnecessary code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50984
Bug #: 50984
Summary: Boolean return value expression clears register too
often
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50963
Bug #: 50963
Summary: TLS incompatible with -mcmodel=large & PIC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50734
Bug #: 50734
Summary: const and pure attributes don't have the effect as in
C
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47043
Summary: allow deprecating enum values
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.
33 matches
Mail list logo
