[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 James Greenhalgh changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #13 from James Greenhalgh --- Author: jgreenhalgh Date: Fri Jul 3 09:52:20 2015 New Revision: 225372 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225372&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [Backport Patch SRA] Fix PR66119 by calling get_move_ratio in SR

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #12 from James Greenhalgh --- Author: jgreenhalgh Date: Fri Jul 3 09:25:54 2015 New Revision: 225369 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225369&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [Patch SRA] Fix PR66119 by calling get_move_ratio in SRA gcc/

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #11 from James Greenhalgh --- There is a patch for this on the Mailing List. Jeff has approved the code-changes and I need an Ack for the test-case (ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02216.html ). After that I'll ba

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 James Greenhalgh changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigne

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #7) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > > DEFPARAM (PARAM_SRA_MAX_SCALARIZATION_SIZE_SPEED, > > "sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed", > >

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #7 from James Greenhalgh --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > DEFPARAM (PARAM_SRA_MAX_SCALARIZATION_SIZE_SPEED, > "sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed", > "Maximum size, in storage units, > > storage

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Fixed by Index: toplev.c === --- toplev.c(revision 223044) +++ toplev.c(working copy) @@ -1311,6 +1311,9 @@ process_options (void)

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- DEFPARAM (PARAM_SRA_MAX_SCALARIZATION_SIZE_SPEED, "sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed", "Maximum size, in storage units, storage units! But the value seems to be in bits? It gets used

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- And we indeed rely on SRA to copy propagate aggregates.

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Ah, it's parameter b assigned to local decl b.