: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Bisecting points on r235765.
My exact options are -O3 -mfpmath=sse -march=core-avx2 -m32
Will try to bisect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71088
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Fixed by r237982
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71559
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71089
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69344
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 36961
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36961&action=edit
Dumps
Profilers show that core_state_transition and calc_func indeed became slower
after r228668.
First differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68775
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
There is a segmentation fault during execution
r222914 is:
r222914 | rguenth | 2015-05-08 18:13:55 +0300 (Fri, 08 May 2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67800
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Richard, do you have any plans regarding this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67749
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
,
||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
r224020 is guilty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #15 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Got an access to AIX machine, planning to look at it next week
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
For the following piece of code
int foo (unsigned int cc)
{
while ( cc >> 16 )
{
cc = (cc & 0x) + (cc >> 16);
}
return cc == 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #13 from Igor Zamyatin ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #12)
> GCC on AIX. One can use gcc111 in the GCC Compiler Farm.
>
Thanks! I've sent a request for an access to gcc111 but got no response so
far...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64739
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Could you please provide details of your compiler configuration for me to try
to reproduce the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #9 from Igor Zamyatin ---
David, could you please try attached patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #8 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 34524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34524&action=edit
patch to try AIX bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
cunroll phase 7 times completely unrolls post-loop that was generated by
vectorizer.
And later vrp complains on those unrolled iterations.
Note that for the test without if (nc > 3), i.e.
void foo(short a[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin ---
BTW, making nc and m to be int instead short eliminates the warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
See the warning ( used -O3 -mssse3 -Wall) on current trunk configured as
../configure --enable-clocale=gnu --with-system-zlib --enable-shared
--with-demangler-in-ld --with-fpmath=sse --enable-checking=releas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #16 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Hi, Honza!
I still see that performance degradations for spec2006 tests. Could you please
check those on your side?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #15 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Just checked: everywhere "-Ofast -flto -funroll-loops -static -m64
-march=core-avx2" used (not -O3 as I mentioned before)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64286
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Perhaps something like below to restrict ree for such cases?
diff --git a/gcc/ree.c b/gcc/ree.c
index 3376901..92370ea 100644
--- a/gcc/ree.c
+++ b/gcc/ree.c
@@ -1004,6 +1004,11 @@ add_removable_extension (c
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
CC: vmakarov at redhat dot com
Target: i686
Created attachment 34285
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target: x86
Created attachment 34284
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34284&action=edit
Reproducer
For the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64151
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin ---
But at the same time difference in "good" and "bad" .optimized dumps seems to
me insignificant (only some postfix numbers of variables).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Partition maps differ
216303:
Partition 0 (_1 - 1 101 200 252 267 316 348 )
Partition 16 (l1_lsm.7_159 - 106 159 238 253 )
and for 216304:
Partition 3 (l1_lsm.7_58 - 58 106 238 253 315 316 )
...
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target: x86
Created attachment 34123
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34123&action=edit
reproducer
Noticed that for the attached test no RTL loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 34103
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34103&action=edit
"bad" dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 34102
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34102&action=edit
"good" dump
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target: x86
Created attachment 34101
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34101&action=edit
reproducer
Got a performance regression for the codes similar to a
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target: x86
While investigating some performance regressions on 32 bits on trunk (just -O2
-m32) I noticed that after r217213 forward propagation makes code worse for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63897
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
after RA=after reload
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63897
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #12 from Igor Zamyatin ---
So far it seems the issue unlikely caused by PIC-related changes in i686 - test
passes with -fno-devirtualize.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63846
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Will take a look. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63845
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
,
||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from Igor Zamyatin ---
So, is this compile time failure or runtime failure (or both for two tests)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #67 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Posted a patch here - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg03318.html
Now discussion stop here -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00320.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63622
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #50 from Igor Zamyatin ---
> In addition r216154 breaks a lot of asan tests with -m32: see
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-10/msg02834.html
Could you please try following patch?
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #49 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Testing a patch to fix asan failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target: i686
There is a new fail for gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c on i686 after r216462
For this test we now have in asm file
movl4(%esp), %eax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63592
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63536
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #21 from Igor Zamyatin ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #20)
>
> libtool: compile: /GCC/ml/gcc-trunk-appleas/./gcc/xgcc
> -B/GCC/ml/gcc-trunk-appleas/./gcc/
> -B/compilers/gcc-trunk/x86_64-apple-darwin12/bin/
> -B/compilers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I don't think so. They copy declarations, i.e. create new declarations, and
> the different ordering of their DECL_UID values may result in code
> generation dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
>
> > + vec_arglist.release();
>
> Formatting. You could use auto_vec, perhaps with some stack allocated
> initial buffer if you think say 16 vector elements w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63307
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Would like to ask here first - will something like following be ok:
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/cilk.c b/gcc/c-family/cilk.c
index bf549ad..f453bc5 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/cilk.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/cilk.c
@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
--- Comment #15 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Sorry, it's r215537
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62002
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Right, it is mentioned explicitly in the docs. Will take a look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62002
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target: i686
After r213517 | tbsaunde | 2014-08-02 15:34:54 +0400 (Sat, 02 Aug 2014) | 27
lines
convert many uses of pointer_map to hash_map
gcc/c-family/
* cilk.c: Use hash_map instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57541
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61734
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61576
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61191
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61191
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61256
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Fixed by r210672
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Linking on x86 as follows
g++ -m64 -Ofast -flto -funroll-loops -m64 -Ofast -flto -funroll-loops
-DSPEC_CPU2000_LP64 ...
gives
lto1
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Looks like the infinite recursion of read_dict.c/insert_list routine
Options:
-Ofast -funroll-loops -flto -marm -mcpu=cortex-a15 -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon
Compiler:
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #12 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Thanks, will post a patch after the testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #10 from Igor Zamyatin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #6)
> > > > Yes, I was going to post
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60467
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #6 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Yes, I was going to post it after complete testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Following works for me and shows no new errors in regtesting. Not sure it is a
good idea though...
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c b/gcc/c/c-array-notation.c
index 6a5631c..d7c6772 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60682
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Seems r207629 (fix for PR59984) introduces given issue.
Test is
class V3
{
public:
float v[1];
V3() {}
V3(const V3 &a
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Following test (compiled with eg -O2 -fcilkplus -lcilkrts)
#include
#include
#include
int noop(int x)
{
return x;
}
int post_increment(int *x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60189
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Ah, g++ gives the ICE :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60189
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #18 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Martin,
I checked the patch and can confirm it gives necessary speedup on the test
(UMTmk_1.1)
Thanks!
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Message:
../../gcc/lra-assigns.c: In function ‘int spill_for(int, bitmap)’:
../../gcc/lra-assigns.c:901:4: error: comparison between signed and unsigned
integer expressions [-Werror=sign-compare
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
vect details show that v1.0_14 = v1 and v2.1_15 = v2 are treated as invariants:
test.c:24:14: note: -->vectorizing statement: v1.0_14 = v1;
test.c:24:14: note: transform statement.
test.c:24:14: note: tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Vectorizer dump snippet for main:
foo.simdclone.0 (vect__12.7_3, vect_cst_.8_53, vect_cst_.8_53,
vect_cst_.9_51, vect_cst_.9_51);
GIMPLE_NOP
vect_v1.12_37 = MEM[(int *)vectp_v1.10_39]; (1)
v1.0_14 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59597
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
That would be great, thanks in advance!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #14 from Igor Zamyatin ---
I meant new_coef from aff_combination_scale
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #13 from Igor Zamyatin ---
I meant that with 3-stage gcc of r204980 testcase from the attachment was
compiled and ran successfully, i.e. no infinite loop.
Currently debugging shows that routine mul_double_wide_with_sign (which is
actu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #10 from Igor Zamyatin ---
I could build profiled bootstrap for r204980 successfully
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #34 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Done - http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59597
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: izamyatin at gmail dot com
Target: x86
Created attachment 31510
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31510&action=edit
reduced test
Degradation could be seen at -Ofast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59591
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Created attachment 31509
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31509&action=edit
small testcase
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
