https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112943
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112824
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112729
--- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5)
>
> Is there a reason to have -fomit-frame-pointer once before and once
> after -mapx-features=push2pop2?
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Will ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112729
--- Comment #3 from Hongyu Wang ---
Created attachment 56703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56703&action=edit
A patch
Hi Rainer, can you help verify if the change make these test pass on
solaris/FreeBSD?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112729
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
The cfi scan fails was caused by -fno-omit-frame-pointer which force push the
frame pointer first and the cfi info become different. By default we have
-fomit-frame-pointer on linux, but not other targets. I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112394
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
Should be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112325
Bug ID: 112325
Summary: Missed vectorization after cunrolli
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27
Bug ID: 27
Summary: Wrong code for avx512ne2ps2bf16_maskz intrinsics since
gcc13
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110215
--- Comment #6 from Hongyu Wang ---
Thanks for the fix, now for the attached test, main loop will not have any
load.
There is a remaining issue that the loop epilogue still contains load from
stack and constant pool
.L9:
movslq %edx,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110424
Bug ID: 110424
Summary: Bogus ODR warning for FMV member function with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110215
Bug ID: 110215
Summary: RA fails to allocate register when loop invariant
lives through EH region
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
operator+ now calls std::__cxx11::basic_string,
myAlloc_ >::get_allocator, and it will call the constructor again after
gimplify
__attribute__((nodiscard))
struct allocator_type std::__cxx11::basic_string,
my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138
Bug ID: 110138
Summary: Extra constructor called when using
basic_string::operator+
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109062
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109062
Bug ID: 109062
Summary: [13 regression] Default value of GOMP_SPINCOUNT
changes since r13-2545
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #12 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for GCC 13. Sorry for introducing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #9 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5)
> > > -munroll-only-small-loops does not turn on or off -funroll-loops, and it
> > > should not, so that it does what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107717
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #3)
> Fixed
Thanks for the fix! It also give me a good tip for match pattern writing :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107734
--- Comment #12 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Fixed.
Thanks for the fix! I was not aware that sbitmap does not have a default
constructor :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #6 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #4)
> (In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 53897 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Sorry for introducing these fails. Here is the patch.
> >
> > I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107692
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
Created attachment 53897
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53897&action=edit
A patch
Sorry for introducing these fails. Here is the patch.
I've tested the patch with cross-compler and all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107676
--- Comment #6 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> > I don't think __atomic_compare_exchange emits such a loop. This is about
> > __atomic_fetch_xor and friends, whic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107304
--- Comment #10 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6)
> > > > (In reply to Hongtao.liu fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106180
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105339
--- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for gcc-9/10/11/12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105288
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
I think should be these 2?
(define_insn_and_split "avx512f__"
[(set (match_operand:AVX512MODE2P 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=x,m")
(vec_concat:AVX512MODE2P
(vec_concat:
(match_op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105034
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
For -O2 stv doesn't do such transform
Computing gain for chain #1...
Instruction gain 8 for 7: {r84:SI=smax(r85:SI,0);clobber flags:CC;}
REG_DEAD r85:SI
REG_UNUSED flags:CC
Instruction conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104978
--- Comment #5 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104977
--- Comment #3 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104726
--- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104724
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104726
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52532|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104726
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
Created attachment 52532
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52532&action=edit
A patch
Hi Rainer, can you try this on your solaris system? We don't have such platform
to confirm it works.
I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104724
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
Created attachment 52531
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52531&action=edit
A patch
Hi Rainer, can you try this on your solaris system? We don't have such platform
to confirm it works.
I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104664
--- Comment #6 from Hongyu Wang ---
Fixed for GCC 12.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104664
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Reconfirmed as RA issue.
I'm afraid we'd avoid pattern like
(insn 180 179 182 2 (set (reg:V8HF 220)
(subreg:V8HF (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104664
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
starting from r12-6021
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #19 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> > _Pragma("GCC target \"relax-cmpxchg-loop\"")
> > should do that (ditto target("relax-cmpxchg-loop") attribute)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #15 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #14)
> I'd restrict relaxations to loops emitted by the compiler. All other atomic
> operations shouldn't be modified at all, unless the user asks for it. That
> incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #13 from Hongyu Wang ---
All above glibc cases are now both relaxed by an load/cmp to skip cmpxchg under
-mrelax-cmpxchg-loop,
but for
> do
> {
> flags = THREAD_GETMEM (self, cancelhandling);
> newval = THREA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069
--- Comment #11 from Hongyu Wang ---
For the case with atomic_compare_exchange_weak_release, it can be expanded as
loop: mov%eax,%r8d
and$0xfff8,%r8d
mov(%r8),%rsi <--- load lock first
cmp%rsi,%rax <--- c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103771
Bug ID: 103771
Summary: Missed vectorization under -mavx512f -mavx512vl after
r12-5489
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103571
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103066
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
__sync_val_compare_and_swap will be expanded to atomic_compare_exchange_strong
by default, should we restrict the check and return under
atomic_compare_exchange_weak which is allowed to fail spuriously?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102812
--- Comment #3 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Please note that the code above should compile via ix86_expand_vector_set,
> similar to:
>
> --cut here--
> typedef short v8hi __attribute__((__vector_size__(16)));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102835
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>
> I wonder what's the best way to handle the difference? Just add
> -fomit-frame-pointer
> to the testcase or allow for the %ebp vs. %esp difference?
For this te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102806
Bug ID: 102806
Summary: [x86] Suboptimal codegen for v4hi vector concat under
-mavx512bw and -mavx512vl
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101993
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> We can vectorize this with masked moves when using AVX2. clang seems to
> simply remove the test completely - C seems to guarantee that a + i is a
> valid pointe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101993
Bug ID: 101993
Summary: Potential vectorization opportunity when condition
checks array address
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101395
--- Comment #10 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Created attachment 51143 [details]
> A patch
>
> Try this instead.
This also works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101395
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Created attachment 51125 [details]
> An updated patch
This works, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101395
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Created attachment 51124 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please test this patch.
It doesn't work.
I use ./sde-external-8.63.0-2021-01-18-lin/sde -spr -- gcc test.c -march=nat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101395
Bug ID: 101395
Summary: Compile failure with -march=native -m32 on
sapphirerapids
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98176
--- Comment #9 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> I'm failing to reproduce with the sincos example since sincos is transformed
> to __builtin_cexpi for me. When using
I always generate sincosf with g++ -Ofast -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101276
Hongyu Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101276
Bug ID: 101276
Summary: [i386] Keylocker output should be cleared when
instruction reports runtime error.
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98339
Bug ID: 98339
Summary: GCC could not vectorize loop with conditional reduced
add and store
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98176
--- Comment #7 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Yes.
>
> For a LIM testcase an example with a memcpy might be more practically
> relevant.
>
> For refactoring I'd start with classifying the unanalyzable refs a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98176
--- Comment #6 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> >
> > > I see ret[0] has store-motion applied. You don't see it vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98176
--- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I see ret[0] has store-motion applied. You don't see it vectorized
> because GCC doesn't know how to vectorize sincos (or cexpi which is
> what it lowers it to).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98176
--- Comment #2 from Hongyu Wang ---
>> I doubt the call is the issue btw.
The aliasing could be removed by
float foo(int *x, int n, float tx)
{
float ret[n];
#pragma omp simd
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98176
Bug ID: 98176
Summary: Loop invariant memory could not be hoisted when
nonpure_call in loop body
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97231
--- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang ---
Created attachment 49280
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49280&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97231
Bug ID: 97231
Summary: Missing FSF copyright notes for some x86 intrinsic
headers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
66 matches
Mail list logo
