https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120815
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
Maybe we should have something like mtune=intel_p and mtune=intel_e, P-core and
E-core are quite different from each other, mtune=intel maybe not sufficient.
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=84508
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
>From Intel intrinsic guide[1], there's explict "mem_addr does not need to be
aligned on any particular
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 115842, which changed state.
Bug 115842 Summary: [15/16 Regression] 6.5% slowdown of 548.exchange2_r on
Intel Ice Lake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> 9380 gcc_assert (!crtl->shrink_wrapped_separate);
>
> It hits this assert which is added by the patch, maybe this assert is not
> needed.
I mean it's added by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120697
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120694
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> Could you retry on trunk? This might be a dupe of bug 120661.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 120661 ***
Yes, it's fixed by r16-1550-g9244ea4b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120694
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
stuck in the loop of ranger_cache::propagate_cache for niters.5_40
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
cat test.c
#include
typedef struct Symmetry
{
int **GFSym;
} SymmetryGHex;
void *SetupGH (int convlevel, int maxdim, int numvars)
{
int i, j;
SymmetryGHex *myGH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> I am happy it helps. I wonder if you can share details of your SPEC config.
> I.e. how you call perf (do you specify count etc) and how you handle merging
> of pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
Looks like it's fixed by r16-1521-g2ef043c5a05d99
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > > > I noticed s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||7.1.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
I can't reproduce the issue with testcase in #c1 since gcc7.1.
So closed as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92492
Bug 92492 depends on bug 92658, which changed state.
Bug 92658 Summary: x86 lacks vector extend / truncate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
What|Removed |Added
-
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
Broadcast from imm is on purpose.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 87767 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gabravier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #23
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
Fixed in GCC13.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
Bug 92645 depends on bug 92658, which changed state.
Bug 92658 Summary: x86 lacks vector extend / truncate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92611
Bug 92611 depends on bug 92658, which changed state.
Bug 92658 Summary: x86 lacks vector extend / truncate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658
What|Removed |Added
-
|RESOLVED
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||14.1.0
--- Comment #28 from Hongtao Liu ---
Fixed in GCC14.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 36844, which changed state.
Bug 36844 Summary: Vectorizer doesn't support INT<->FP conversions with
different size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36844
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96654
Bug 96654 depends on bug 36844, which changed state.
Bug 36844 Summary: Vectorizer doesn't support INT<->FP conversions with
different size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36844
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36844
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82897
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82897
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> Looks like this was fixed in GCC 15:
> ```
> foo:
> .LFB7284:
> .cfi_startproc
> vmovd %edi, %xmm2
> vmovdqa32 %zmm1, %zmm4
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82897
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|--- |FIXED
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19 from Hongtao Liu ---
Looks like it's fixed by r16-170-ga670ebde399548.
Now it generates decent code as
"_Z8qustrchrPDsS_Ds":
cmp rdi, rsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120457
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #1)
> double __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
> compute_integral (double w_1[18])
> {
> double A = 0;
> double t33[2][6] = {{0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0},
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120457
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
double __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
compute_integral (double w_1[18])
{
double A = 0;
double t33[2][6] = {{0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0},
{0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0}};
double t43[2] = {0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120428
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13)
> > The inner loop is not completely unrolled since std::copy is lowered to
> > __builtin_memmove instead of __built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120428
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13)
> >
> > constexpr std::size_t ProcessChunkSize = BlockSize * OrderSize;
> >
> > std::array buffer{};
> >
> > std::byte* const bytes = reinterpret_cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120428
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> constexpr std::size_t ProcessChunkSize = BlockSize * OrderSize;
>
> std::array buffer{};
>
> std::byte* const bytes = reinterpret_cast(data);
>
> for (std::size_t i = 0; i < TotalSize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> Add --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed=2048 will eliminate those
> spills
>
> So for sra we can consider using MOVE_MAX * move_ratio as the size limit for
> Ospeed which represents real backend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 119181, which changed state.
Bug 119181 Summary: Missed vectorization due to imperfect SLP discovery for 2
grouped load with same base pointer (taken as 1 interleaved load)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120378
--- Comment #1 from Hongtao Liu ---
> The ifcvt'ed code before vect is:
>
> _4 = *_3;
> x.0_12 = (unsigned int) _4;
> _38 = -x.0_12;
> _15 = (int) _38;
> _16 = _15 >> 31;
> _29 = x.0_12 > 255;
> _17 = _29 ? _16 : _4;
> _18 = (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118994
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120215
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120215
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120184
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120184
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
cat test.c
int foo1(void)
{
static int foo_1;
return ++foo_1;
}
int foo2(void)
{
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118508
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118581
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119879
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|16.0
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
[r16-39 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512fp16-trunc-extendvnhf.c
On Linux/x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108134
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> (In reply to sandra from comment #2)
> > This was introduced by commit 0fec3f62b9bfc03e5088a09036791c2ac84fe0c8. I
> > wondered if there might have been a patch hun
at gcc dot gnu.org |liuhongt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #2)
> This was introduced by commit 0fec3f62b9bfc03e5088a09036791c2ac84fe0c8. I
> wondered if there might have been a patch hunk to update the example that
> didn&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
--- Comment #12 from Hongtao Liu ---
Let's just fix it in GCC16, either solution is ugly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118551
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> as discussed in PR111551 the SPEC train run does not include hottest loop of
> MorphologyApply, so MeanShiftImage may have same issue and auto-fdo may be
> kind of c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > > I think we need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > I think we need to disable the effect of -mno-evex512, looks like there's
> > still traces of it left?
>
> Let's ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119617
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102294
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119596
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101017
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #12)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #11)
> > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #10)
> > > Did this ever happen ?
> > >
> > > Similar test case gcc/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119464
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119368
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> But for this case, I think targetm.can_change_mode_class (op_mode,
> result_mode, ALL_REGS) is not needed since it's memory.
I mean case in #c1, for case in #c0, it's more complicated.
1. It's also rela
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114591
--- Comment #18 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #16)
> >
> > 4952 /* See if a MEM has already been loaded with a widening operation;
> > 4953 if it has, we can use a subreg of that. Many CISC machines
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119368
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119425
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lin1.hu at intel dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117452
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #7)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > I noticed some double-counting of cost in group-candidate (regarding loop
> > invariant expressions), this modific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118753
Bug 118753 depends on bug 117069, which changed state.
Bug 117069 Summary: [15 Regression] gcc.target/i386/apx-ndd-tls-1b.c since
r15-268-g9dbff9c05520a7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
I'll take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #15 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> This stopped failing for me around:
>
> commit 2bc3ea210565dc7cdbba9adb31acceefed406254
> Author: Sam James
> Date: Fri Nov 22 15:20:45 2024 +
>
> saving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
> > I didn't find this commit in gcc trunk?
>
> Ah, sorry for confusion: it's from my local test results. Only the date
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> This stopped failing for me around:
>
> commit 2bc3ea210565dc7cdbba9adb31acceefed406254
> Author: Sam James
> Date: Fri Nov 22 15:20:45 2024 +
>
> saving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler
> ability of generating code_6_gottpoff_reloc instruction, but failed since
> there's a se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114978
--- Comment #33 from Hongtao Liu ---
I have a fix in ivopt for x86 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842#c6, you may try to see if
that helps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #11 from Hongtao Liu ---
More common case is
typedef int v8si __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
v8si
foo1 (v8si a, v8si b)
{
v8si c = __builtin_shufflevector (a, b, 0, 1, 2, 11, 4, 5, 6, 15);
v8si d = __builtin_shufflevect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
But it still can't fix the issue with
void
foo (int* a, int* restrict b)
{
b[0] = a[0] * a[8];
b[1] = a[1] * a[9];
b[2] = a[2] * a[10];
b[3] = a[11] * a[3];
b[4] = a[12] * a[4];
b[5]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #8 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> The issue is we detect this as a single interleaving group:
>
> t.c:12:1: note: Detected interleaving load of size 264
> t.c:12:1: note: _1 = *a_26(D);
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
int
foo (unsigned char* a, char* b, int n, int stride, int* __restrict dst)
{
int sum = 0;
sum +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
void
foo (int* a, int* __restrict b, int* c)
{
b[0] = a[0] * c[256];
b[1] = c[257] * a[1];
b[2] = a[2] * c[258];
b[3] = c[259] * a[3];
b[4] = c[260] * a[4];
b[5] = c[261] * a[5];
b[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #3 from Hongtao Liu ---
void
foo (int* a, int* __restrict b)
{
b[0] = a[0] * a[256];
b[1] = a[257] * a[1];
b[2] = a[2] * a[258];
b[3] = a[259] * a[3];
b[4] = a[260] * a[4];
b[5] = a[261] * a[5];
b[6] = a[6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
>
> Looks like if both operands satisfy same STMT_VINFO_GROUPED_ACCESS as first
> stmt, we'd better have a heuristic to choose more closer one?
If all grouped operations satisfy commutative property.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119181
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks like it is missing the commutativity property of multiply.
Note compiler options is with Ofast.
RMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
void
foo (double* a, double* __restrict b)
{
b[0] = a[0] * a[256];
b[1] = a[257] * a[1];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #5)
> (In reply to Haochen Jiang from comment #4)
> > I suppose that patch should be reverted, caused by Richard S's patch.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115842
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
I noticed some double-counting of cost in group-candidate (regarding loop
invariant expressions), this modification reduces the number of instructions
executed by ~8% for exchange_r binary compiled with -marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #10 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 60647 [details]
> > A patch to remove CREG and BREG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
> >
> > Hongtao,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #4)
> vect_recog_over_widening_pattern could be extended with range info for this?
Looks like vectorizer already have range_info from
vect_determine_precisions_from_range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119103
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #9 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Created attachment 60647 [details]
> A patch to remove CREG and BREG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
>
> Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU 2017?
Ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #16 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #14)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > > Created attachment 60609 [details]
> > > An untested patch
> >
> > Hongtao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #5)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 60640 [details]
> > A patch to remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
> >
> > Hongtao, c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #14 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 60609 [details]
> > An untested patch
>
> Hongtao, do you have SPEC CPU2017 data on this patch?
I haven
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #5 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Created attachment 60640 [details]
> A patch to remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
>
> Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU2017?
Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES was added by
>
> commit c98f874233428d7e6ba83def7842fd703ac0ddf1
> Author: James Van Artsdalen
> Date: Sun Feb 9 13:28:48 1992 +
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #13 from Hongtao Liu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> Created attachment 60590 [details]
> A patch
>
> Can you try this on SPEC CPU?
No big impact for both O2 and Ofast on SPEC2017.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118994
--- Comment #7 from Hongtao Liu ---
diff --git a/gcc/match.pd b/gcc/match.pd
index 5c679848bdf..d6a465c963c 100644
--- a/gcc/match.pd
+++ b/gcc/match.pd
@@ -11348,3 +11348,28 @@ and,
}
(if (full_perm_p)
(vec_perm (op@3 @0 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #6 from Hongtao Liu ---
It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler
ability of generating code_6_gottpoff_reloc instruction, but failed since
there's a seg_prefixed memory usage(r14-6242-gd564198f960a2f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
Hongtao Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
1 - 100 of 599 matches
Mail list logo
