https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47753|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #101 from Dzianis Kahanovich ---
Created attachment 47754
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47754&action=edit
additional aligning on demand 10.0 (unsure)
This is same for gcc 10.0 and not fully verifyed.
It MUST w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #100 from Dzianis Kahanovich ---
Created attachment 47753
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47753&action=edit
additional aligning on demand <10.0
Finally (for me), if somebody think to patch by H.J. Lu is not enou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #99 from Dzianis Kahanovich ---
PPS About some hidden thinks/things. In pure theory. "*cost-model=cheap" can
reduce SSE usage, -mstackrealign - can increase function prolog/epilog
overhead. In my case - x7-Z8700 CPU have 2 FPU cores f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #98 from Dzianis Kahanovich ---
fix: "I not try to rebuild 32bit "world" without ANY workaround" - on modern
gcc (now all under 9.2). Previous experiments was times & versions ago, so many
other new factors/fixes can solve most issues
s...
(In reply to Viktor Ostashevskyi from comment #96)
> Honestly, I don't see how your compiler flags could help. cost-model=cheap
> is default, data-alignment doesn't change incoming stack alignment.
>
> ср, 15 січ. 2020, 14:31 користувач mahatma at eu dot by <
> gcc-bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #95 from Dzianis Kahanovich ---
Just FYI. Novadays, on my Thinkpad tablet with Atom (32 bit userspace Gentoo),
I globally replace patch/-mstackrealign to "-fvect-cost-model=cheap
-fsimd-cost-model=cheap -malign-data=cacheline" and all
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mahatma at eu dot by
Target Milestone: ---
After rebuild gmp (6.1.0 now) with -floop-nest-optimize over -O2 or -O1
-fstrict-overflow - gmp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53966
--- Comment #3 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2012-07-16
13:15:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Yes, right, "-O2 -finline-functions" broken too.
"-O3 -fno-inline-functions" - broken;
"-O3 -fno-inline-functions -fno-ipa-cp-clone" - good.
-fno-strict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53966
--- Comment #1 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2012-07-14
20:49:30 UTC ---
x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53966
Bug #: 53966
Summary: procmail build deadloop on _autotst & -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52225
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52225
--- Comment #4 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2012-02-13
15:49:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you explain what you mean by stuck? Also all those flags look like you
> are
> trying to test out the compiler and not really the system.
>
> P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52225
--- Comment #3 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2012-02-13
15:35:08 UTC ---
OK, I will try to reproduce problem on chrooted environment (I rebuild system
on this machine).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52225
Bug #: 52225
Summary: -minline-all-stringops possible stuck
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40171
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22444|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #87 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2011-03-13
16:56:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> Am I the only one who thinks this bug should be nominated as the first
> priority
> GCC 4.6.0 bug?
Some lazy people ;) may use global mstackrealign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45359
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22306|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40171
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22434|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40171
--- Comment #6 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2010-11-17
19:15:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 22434
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22434
atune.patch
Yes, I read maillist archives. But I don't know current state of process and
may su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46396
--- Comment #1 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2010-11-09
15:18:04 UTC ---
PS If you think it possible, you may use more complex (+1 hunk) VIA detection
patch, attached to Bug #45359.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46396
Summary: gcc not detect caches for VIA CPUs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: unassig...@g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40171
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mahatma at eu dot by
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45359
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #0|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44046
Dzianis Kahanovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mahatma at eu dot by
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45359
--- Comment #3 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2010-11-01
13:21:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 0
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=0
native VIA/CentaurHauls
(In reply to comment #1)
> Why do you think it's a poor choice?
This i
--- Comment #30 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-11-27 12:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=19163)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19163&action=view)
(2) for 4.5
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156
--- Comment #29 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-11-27 12:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=19162)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19162&action=view)
(2) for 4.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156
--- Comment #28 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-11-27 12:45 ---
Yes, I read PR 40838. But last (IMHO) in this thread:
Disabling SSE in whole GCC libs may cause various build problems in SSE-related
-march (mostly with -ffast-math, but IMHO more). So, to use this simple
solution, SSE
--- Comment #57 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-15 14:29 ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> Created an attachment (id=18656)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18656&action=view) [edit]
> An updated patch for gcc 4.4
>
> Oops. Wrong patch. Trry this
--- Comment #27 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-13 13:26 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> > unused wide. Why? What side-effects of "-mstackrealign"? Perfomance?
>
> Please see PR 40838.
As seen on... a...
I found only ABI standard reasons. FIXME!
But SSE usa
--- Comment #26 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-13 12:16 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> would you please just test the patch on PR 40838 and tell HJ if it works or
> not?
>
In progress. There are only one Celeron PC leased without distcc to build and
runtime test big
--- Comment #23 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-12 11:40 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> We can't check Seamonkey into gcc/testsuite. We need something
> much smaller.
I understand this. But even if I will use your testsuite addons (I unsure in
it, Gentoo "USE=test
--- Comment #21 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-10 13:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=18773)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18773&action=view)
tests proposal from PR 40838 (from H.J. Lu)
Are there are good?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #20 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-10 13:48 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Without a testcase, people may not review the patch.
>
May be just include your tests from Bug 40838? (even without testing)
>From http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1
--- Comment #18 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-09 14:41 ---
Created an attachment (id=18766)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18766&action=view)
(2) for 4.5, fixed
Originals may produce illegal warnings without SSE.
--
mahatma at eu dot by
--- Comment #17 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-09 14:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=18765)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18765&action=view)
(2) for 4.4, fixed
--
mahatma at eu dot by changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #16 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-09 14:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=18764)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18764&action=view)
2) sse-stackrealign-sse4a-4.5.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156
--- Comment #15 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-09 14:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=18763)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18763&action=view)
1) sse-stackrealign-misalignsse-4.5.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156
--- Comment #14 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-09 14:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=18762)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18762&action=view)
2) sse-stackrealign-sse4a-4.4.patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156
--- Comment #13 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-09 14:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=18761)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18761&action=view)
1) sse-stackrealign-misalignsse-4.4.patch
--
mahatma at eu dot by changed:
What|
--- Comment #12 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-10-09 14:07 ---
I found new AMD CPUs not required to stack aligning for SSE. IMHO there are
"misalignsse" cpu feature, found near SSE4a (fixme). Then, requirement for
stack realigning may be checked from "misalignsse"
--- Comment #11 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-09-25 11:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=18650)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18650&action=view)
sse & 32bit -> -mstackrealign (example 2)
Second attempt (while against 4.4.1, sorry). Working with an
--- Comment #45 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-09-23 18:37 ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> Created an attachment (id=18618)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18618&action=view) [edit]
> An updated patch for gcc 4.4
>
Seamonkey still segfault
--- Comment #3 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-09-21 13:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=18623)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18623&action=view)
linux-2.6.31 deconfig x86_64 error
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41025
--- Comment #2 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-09-21 13:08 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you provide the preprocessed source?
>
Yes. After make/error:
http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by/download/transit/glibc-2.10.1-error.tar.bz2
(gentoo flavored, sorry)
New info: it happened
--- Comment #9 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-09-19 16:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=18608)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18608&action=view)
sse & 32bit -> -mstackrealign (example only!)
Previous my ideas too heavy. :)
IMHO native solution for t
--- Comment #8 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-09-08 12:08 ---
I don't trying to rebuild all with 4-byte incoming stack alignment while, but
think to unify this step with full ABI change. For me it may solve migration to
-mregparm=3 ("ix86_regparm = REGPARM_MAX;" for x86
--- Comment #31 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-27 19:17 ---
Seamonkey still more unstable then with 4.3.3. With system libs, -O3 & sse -
ruuning only in "safe-mode". All system rebuilt with 4.4.1 & this patch. There
are looks like "seamonkey problem" (an
--- Comment #1 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-25 10:20 ---
Fix: I got bug with -msse only, not -msse2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41156
--- Comment #29 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-19 19:08 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
...
> This is not mine and isn't needed.
OK. New patch working. While only so (tested in seamonkey with all included
libs).
Are realigning needed for both states of "TREE_STATIC (d
--- Comment #27 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-18 11:28 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> *** Bug 40985 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #25)
> Created an attachment (id=18393)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18393&am
--- Comment #10 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-11 13:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=18340)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18340&action=view)
patch
For gcc 4.4.1. Moved to tree-vect-data-refs.c in cvs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40985
--- Comment #9 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-11 12:49 ---
Simplest way to save Bug 32893 solution: replace MAX_STACK_ALIGNMENT by
STACK_BOUNDARY in vect_can_force_dr_alignment_p (tree-vectorizer.c / ...). No
error more.
--
mahatma at eu dot by changed:
What
--- Comment #23 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-10 17:48 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=129764
> Log:
> PR tree-optimization/32893
> * tree-vectorize.c (vect_can_force_dr
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mahatma at eu dot by
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41025
--- Comment #8 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-07 18:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=18325)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18325&action=view)
PR 40838 for gcc 4.4.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40985
--- Comment #7 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-07 18:21 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> You can try my patch for PR 40838.
No error.
Current i386.h must be fixed by hands. Next I attach gcc-4.4.1 version of this
patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40985
--- Comment #5 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-06 19:56 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Primary combination: "-march=pentium4 -O3 ...",
> > minimal: "-O1 -march=i686 -msse -ftree-vectorize".
> > Rebuilding zlib v1.
--- Comment #2 from mahatma at eu dot by 2009-08-06 13:49 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Please follow [1] on how to report bug.
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
With pleasure. If I will understand what I may to say more/else, exclude host
type.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
tree-vectorize cause segfaults (zlib)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mahatma at eu dot by
61 matches
Mail list logo
