https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114760
Bug ID: 114760
Summary: traling zero count detection failure
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98138
--- Comment #12 from Jiangning Liu
---
Hi Richi,
> That said, "failure" to identify the common (vector) load is known
> and I do have experimental patches trying to address that but did
> not yet arrive at a conclusive "best" approach.
It was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #11 from Jiangning Liu
---
Hi Wilco,
> "it means we will need a linker optimization to remove those redundant BTIs
> (eg. by changing them into NOPs)"
It will be only for performance optimization, right? If we don't care about
pe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109603
Bug ID: 109603
Summary: Vectorization failure for a small loop containing a
simple branch
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109343
Bug ID: 109343
Summary: invalid if conversion optimization for aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: rust/master
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89430
--- Comment #17 from Jiangning Liu
---
Yes.
> -Original Message-
> From: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 4:48 PM
> To: JiangNing Liu
> Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/89430] A missing ifcvt optimization t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106823
Bug ID: 106823
Summary: #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wattribute-warning"
doesn't work for -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #7 from Jiangning Liu ---
Without reverting the commit g:1118a3ff9d3ad6a64bba25dc01e7703325e23d92, we
still see exchange2 performance issue for aarch64. BTW, we have been using
-fno-inline-functions-called-once to get the best perform
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100511
--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu ---
If we change "c3 = a" to "c3 = x->b", GCC can optimize it without IPA. It seems
VRP is working for this case.
$ cat tt7.c
#include
int a;
typedef struct {
int b;
int count;
} XX;
int g;
__attrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100511
--- Comment #2 from Jiangning Liu ---
Then why gcc can't optimize this case either? sizeof (XX) <> sizeof(g) here.
#include
int a;
typedef struct {
int b;
int count;
} XX;
int g;
__attribute__((noinline)) void f(XX *x)
{
int c1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100511
Bug ID: 100511
Summary: Fail to remove dead code in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99946
--- Comment #1 from Jiangning Liu ---
Is there any gcc pass that can deal with this simple optimization?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99946
Bug ID: 99946
Summary: fail to exchange if conditions in terms of
likely/unlikely probability
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98782
--- Comment #4 from Jiangning Liu ---
Hi Honza,
Do you see any other real case problems if the patch
g:1118a3ff9d3ad6a64bba25dc01e7703325e23d92 is not applied?
If exchange2 is the only one affected by this patch so far, and because we have
obse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #12 from Jiangning Liu
---
MGO RFC is at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-January/234682.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #11 from Jiangning Liu
---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2021, jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
> >
> > --- Comment #7 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #10 from Jiangning Liu
---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #9)
> It looks like a SOA/AOC opt opportunity which is discussed in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/
> cauldron2015?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=Olga+Golovanevsky_+Memor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #7 from Jiangning Liu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On January 9, 2021 4:17:17 AM GMT+01:00, "jiangning.liu at amperecomputing
> dot com" wrote:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
> >
> >---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu ---
> It has to be done with care of course, cost modeling is difficult
> (we need to have a good estimate of n and m or need to version
> the whole nest). That said, usually we attempt the reverse transform.
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
--- Comment #2 from Jiangning Liu ---
Loop distribution can only handle very simple case. If the inner loop has
complicated control flow and other memory accesses with loop-carried
dependence, it would be hard to handle it. For example,
int foo
20 matches
Mail list logo
