https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Not yet: those sparc boxes are slow, and it will take ages. I'll check
> if I can reproduce in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt ---
> No, I don't think so. The same change was made in GCC 4.9, and it didn't
> cause
> it to XPASS there (looking at gcc-testresults). Also, my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt ---
No, I don't think so. The same change was made in GCC 4.9, and it didn't cause
it to XPASS there (looking at gcc-testresults). Also, my change restricted the
number of cases for which a test is expected to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #23 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 35456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35456&action=edit
bb-slp-32.c.141t.slp2 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 24 20:17:10 2015
New Revision: 222423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-24 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r222349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 24 13:45:08 2015
New Revision: 222412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-24 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r222349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Apr 23 21:03:40 2015
New Revision: 222386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-23 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r222349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Apr 23 00:21:39 2015
New Revision: 222349
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222349&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-22 Bill Schmidt
PR target/65456
* config/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Proposed patch added to the general P8 unaligned vector patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01502.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
That last bit also needs an update to the table in ISA 2.07 II.2, p. 754.
I'm planning to include the change for the vector alignment piece in my P8
unaligned vectors patch, since it seems relevant there. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Changing the condition as follows produces a nice tight lxvd2x/stxvd2x loop in
all three places:
#define SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS(MODE, ALIGN) \
(STRICT_ALIGNMENT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
The problem is this declaration in rs6000.h, which forces unaligned vector
stores to be scalarized during expand:
/* Define this macro to be the value 1 if unaligned accesses have a cost
many time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #10)
> I believe that the choice to scalarize is based on the vector cost model.
Hm, that would be interesting. The applied patch changes the cost model to
favor the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
I believe that the choice to scalarize is based on the vector cost model.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Pish, those adds shouldn't be the least bit relevant. I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #7 from Anton Blanchard ---
Thanks Martin.
Bill: the swaps pass isn't catching our vectorised copy, I guess because of the
adds in the loop:
lxvd2x 0,9,4
addi 28,1,-48
add 6,9,10
xxpermdi 12,0,0,2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 35066
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35066&action=edit
Assembly emitted by gcc 5.0.0 20150319 after aplying the patch referenced in
comment #5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Note the vectorizer has a slight preference to align stores.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |---
Summary|[5 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
26 matches
Mail list logo
