https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115458
Palmer Dabbelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2025-01-08
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
(In reply to Javier Mora from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117544
Palmer Dabbelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117544
--- Comment #1 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
(In reply to Kito Cheng from comment #0)
> I'm not sure if it's reasonable to ask the Linux kernel maintainers to fix
> this by keeping VILL consistent across system calls.
That doesn't fix the problem: we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116693
--- Comment #2 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
I think something like this
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
index 9f94b5aa023..c64c881d152 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.md
@@ -2334
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116615
--- Comment #9 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> FYI on LoongArch it's claimed LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT=0 mostly helps FP
> benchmarks, something like
>
> /* { dg-options "-O2 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-gimple"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116615
--- Comment #8 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> History on LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT being able to defined differently
> from BRANCH_COST. It was originally added for powerpc (2002/2003ish) which
> had exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116615
Palmer Dabbelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115687
--- Comment #8 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
(In reply to Andrew Waterman from comment #6)
> I note MIPS sets TARGET_CONST_ANCHOR to 0x8000, and that architecture's
> ADDIU instruction has a 16-bit immediate. RISC-V's ADDI instruction has a
> 12-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115687
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > There is some code in cse.cc which does handle this.
> > See
> > https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115687
--- Comment #4 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just poking around a bit: I think this is coming from CSE, which is replacing
(insn 5 2 6 2 (set (reg:DI 135)
(const_int 16384 [0x4000])) "pr115687.c":7:12 275 {*movdi_64bit}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115687
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-27
Ever
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Alex is trying to do the amocas.q support in Linux, which operates on paired X
registers by providing only the even register i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114809
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #18 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #17)
> (In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> > So if I understand correctly, there may also be a problem where it's trying
> > to cre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #17 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Edwin Lu from comment #16)
> (In reply to palmer from comment #15)
> > It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
> >
> > $ cat gcc/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
--- Comment #15 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's a little easier to see from the float version of the code.
$ cat gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/c23-stdarg-6.c
/* Test C23 variadic functions with no named parameters, or last named
para
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-02-29
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114175
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109668
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113686
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nelsonc1225 at sourceware
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84568
--- Comment #13 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just stumbled back into this one. I think it's fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113087
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112531
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-11-21
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112295
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-10-30
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |patrick at rivosinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111518
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111501
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-09-20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-08-24
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111065
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111020
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
--- Comment #7 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to palmer from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> > I'd bet it's const_0_operand not allowing CONST_DOUBLE.
> >
> > The q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I'm not sure if this is some ABI-related requirement that I've managed to
forget about, but it looks like we're saving/restoring FP around inline
assembly.
l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110478
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109989
--- Comment #4 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I left some cruft in that reproducer, it should have been
volatile float f[2];
int x[2];
void func() {
x[0] = -1;
x[1] = 2;
for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i)
f[i] = x[i];
}
Not s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109989
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110201
--- Comment #6 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Craig Topper from comment #3)
> I don't have a testsuite. I saw that gcc had crypto builtins and I happened
> to noticed the tests in gcc weren't passing constant ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110201
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Yea, the tests aren't great. They'll be better shortly. They'll test
> non-constant arguments and out-of-range constants,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110201
--- Comment #2 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Do you guys have a test suite for these, or did you just happen to run into it?
The intrinsic testing has been a bit of a blind spot in GCC land.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
A few of us were talking about this in the patchwork sync today, I think Juzhe
might have a fix already. I'm getting a few tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109972
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338
--- Comment #20 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rvalue from comment #19)
> (In reply to Aurelien Jarno from comment #18)
> > I wonder if the following patch should also be backported, as it
> > doesn't mak
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I was just poking around with a simple loop using the vector intrinsics and
found some odd generated code. This is on the gcc-13 branch, but that's pretty
close to tru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108826
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We've run into a handful of things that look like this before, I'm not sure if
it's a backend issue or something more general. There's two patterns here that
are freq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338
--- Comment #12 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've got a somewhat recently rebased version of Patrick's patch floating
around, it passed testing but I got hung up on the futex_time64 thing and
forgot about it. Not sure if folks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
--- Comment #10 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Waterman from comment #9)
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:02 PM palmer at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
> wrote:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106585
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106602
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106815
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
--- Comment #8 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to baoshan from comment #6)
> > > really of unknown alignment then sharing the lui might not work.
> > Can you elaborat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106818
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106807
--- Comment #3 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> That happens if you use a modified compiler that automatically adds
> -latomic, so that configure in libatomic thinks that the builti
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
We've started compiling some libatomic routines to infinite loops, for example
testsuite/gcc.dg/atomic/stdatomic-load-1.c ends up with
000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106544
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
RISC-V has a handful of floating-point conversion instructions that we don't
appear to be taking advantage of. For ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105355
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102892
--- Comment #13 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just posted a patch
<https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/593995.html> that removes
the undefined behavior from this test case, with that it links on RISC-V.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102892
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito.cheng at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rvalue from comment #4)
> In short term, maybe we can change the spec to link against libatomic by
> default (implemented in
> https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104831
--- Comment #1 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not quite sure what the rules on targeting 12 for this one: it's not
technically a regression, as it's always been broken, but it is a bug. I'd err
on the side of taking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84568
--- Comment #10 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to palm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84568
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
There's a handful of bugs sort of related to this one, but nothing specific.
This has been a long-standing issue and I think folks are generally familiar
with it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94136
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85492
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks Jim. This looks good to me, are you comfortable submitting glibc
patches? If so then I'll commit it, otherwise I can send it out myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85492
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82717
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82717
--- Comment #6 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: palmer
Date: Fri Oct 27 15:22:43 2017
New Revision: 254153
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254153&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
RISC-V: Correct and improve the "-mabi"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82717
--- Comment #4 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alex Bradbury from comment #2)
> (In reply to palmer from comment #1)
> > Thanks Alex -- you're correct that this is a documentation/code mismatch. I
> > just tal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82717
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79912
--- Comment #18 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: palmer
Date: Mon Mar 20 16:43:21 2017
New Revision: 246283
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246283&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
RISC-V: Don't prefer FP_REGS for integers
75 matches
Mail list logo
