https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
Thanks for CCing, I will have a look this WE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/542038.html
It's a latent bug exposed by the mentioned alias analysis change, however:
unsigned char b, f;
short d[1][8][1], *g = &d[0][3][0];
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94125
--- Comment #11 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Thanks Bin, fixed on trunk sofar.
Hmm, if it's fine, I will backport this to GCC9.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674
--- Comment #18 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #17)
> Has not been backported yet.
Will do it. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> So I think the issue is not dependence testing but loop distribution
> accepting a
> zero dependence distance as OK. Of course dependence analysis is quite
> useles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #8 from bin cheng ---
Root cause is in build_classic_dist_vector -> constant_access_functions which
adds unit distance vector only in case of constant access function. It should
cover invariant cases. Testing a patch. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95019
--- Comment #1 from bin cheng ---
Please provide the exact configuration/compilation command lines in bug report
next time, which could save others' time to reproduce. Considering I didn't
touch mips for years.
As for this specific issue, note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95019
--- Comment #3 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to zhongyu...@tom.com from comment #2)
> It is a generic issue for all targets, such as x86, it also don't enpand
Yes, as said it's because SCEV currently doesn't model this, so it's not target
specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #10 from bin cheng ---
Hi，should I backport this and PR95110 to branches? Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> But IVOPTs is supposed to know how to eliminate equal IVs. Maybe it's
> confused
> about the IFN uses?
It's an known issue that IVOPTs has difficulty in recognizin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Thu, 21 May 2020, zhoukaipeng3 at huawei dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from Kaipeng Zhou --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> All I can say is that bisection shows (at least when preprocessed with g++
> 8.3.1 first) that this changed behavior in
> r10-7184-ge4e9a59105a81cdd6c1328b0a5ed9fe4cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
We call graphds_scc twice to break alias dependence, with alias dependence
edges skipped in the second call. The code (both before and after
r10-7184-ge4e9a59105a81cdd6c1328b0a5ed9fe4cc82840e) tries to rectify p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94969
--- Comment #16 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> I don't see the commit on the GCC 10 branch nor the GCC 8 branch. Master
> and GCC 9 are fixed though.
Will backport the 10 and 8, thanks for reminding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. We seem to end up with a reduction partition not in the last
> position thus miss some required partition merging.
Sorry for the breakage.
Whew, this pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #9 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> So fixed on the trunk, waiting for 10 backport?
Sorry, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804 is also in this part
which I believe is related to this fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> @Bin: Any news about this?
Patch is approved, will apply soon. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95804
--- Comment #11 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Fixed - note it needs to be backported when the PR95638 fix is backported.
I backported PR95638/PR95804 to GCC-10/GCC-9 branches. However, unnecessary to
backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96031
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
Interesting case, I see two issues in generated asm. One is the unnecessary
bitwise and, the other is allocating different registers for induction variable
and the base address. However, looks like neither issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638
--- Comment #14 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> GCC 10.2 is released, adjusting target milestone.
Hmm, this should be fixed on GCC10/GCC9. I backported PR95638/PR95804
separately using cherry-pick, so the back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96201
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
The orignal iv needs to be represented in debug bind stmt is:
64 IV struct:
65 SSA_NAME: i_18
66 Type: int
67 Base: 0
68 Step: 1
69 Biv: Y
70 Overflowness wrto loop niter: No-overflow
Whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #11 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to bin cheng from comment #7)
> > The orignal iv needs to be represented in debug bind stmt is:
> > 64 IV struct:
> > 65 SSA_NAME: i_18
> > 66
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90231
--- Comment #12 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Actually (int) ((ivtmp.11 - (unsigned long) dst_10) / 4), sorry.
> On 64-bit targets this will never be a problem, are you worried about 32-bit
> targets where int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85471
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92574
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
Similar to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
The original idea was handle this as much as possible in ivopt which is
difficult given ivopt code has lots of (scev/niter) validity checks. In
afore
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Following code is reduced from cppcoro but is irrelevant to coroutine.
#include
#include
class ipv6_address
{
public:
constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> *** Bug 92926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I sent a patch fixing this a
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00920.html
The only question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> > *** Bug 92926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> I sent a patch fixing this a
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93143
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #6)
> (In reply to bin cheng from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> > > *** Bug 92926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> >
> > I sent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93334
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. The issue is that the overlap would be an issue if the stores
> were using different values like
>
> void test_simple_code(long l, double* mem, long ofs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92244
--- Comment #5 from bin cheng ---
Vectorizer generates following address bases:
_79 = (sizetype) len_6(D);
_80 = _79 + 18446744073709551600;
vectp.14_78 = head_7(D) + _80;
_89 = (sizetype) len_6(D);
_90 = _89 + 18446744073709551600;
v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45070
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-04 09:36:48 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Sep 4 09:36:44 2012
New Revision: 190919
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190919
Log:
PR target/45070
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45070
--- Comment #22 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-05 10:50:00 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:49:56 2012
New Revision: 190970
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190970
Log:
Backport from 2012-09-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45070
--- Comment #23 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-05 10:54:11 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Sep 5 10:54:08 2012
New Revision: 190971
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190971
Log:
Backport from 2012-09-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45070
--- Comment #24 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-07 10:50:40 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Sep 7 10:50:35 2012
New Revision: 191067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191067
Log:
Backport from 2012-09-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45070
--- Comment #25 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-07 11:01:02 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Sep 7 11:00:52 2012
New Revision: 191068
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191068
Log:
Backport from 2012-09-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54364
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-19 07:40:21 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Sep 19 07:40:15 2012
New Revision: 191462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191462
Log:
PR middle-end/54364
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50970
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-25 06:37:34 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Sep 25 06:37:29 2012
New Revision: 191692
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191692
Log:
PR c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-30 02:17:57 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Oct 30 02:17:50 2012
New Revision: 192976
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192976
Log:
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-04 02:52:32 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri May 4 02:52:27 2012
New Revision: 187139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187139
Log:
PR rtl-optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-15 02:14:11 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue May 15 02:14:05 2012
New Revision: 187496
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187496
Log:
Backport r187139 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50472
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:33:29 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:33:23 2012
New Revision: 188414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188414
Log:
Backport r179200 from GCC-4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:45:27 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:45:23 2012
New Revision: 188415
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188415
Log:
Backport r179389 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:50:37 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:50:34 2012
New Revision: 188416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188416
Log:
Backport r180240 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 03:11:03 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 03:10:55 2012
New Revision: 188418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188418
Log:
Backport r180986 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51867
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-09 09:37:43 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Feb 9 09:37:37 2012
New Revision: 184037
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184037
Log:
PR target/51867
* bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51835
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-10 03:14:45 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 10 03:14:40 2012
New Revision: 184082
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184082
Log:
Backport from mainline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51835
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-14 07:42:47 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Feb 14 07:42:41 2012
New Revision: 184197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184197
Log:
Backport from mainline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41488
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Dec 10 06:31:41 2013
New Revision: 205848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/41488
* tree-ssa-loop-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41488
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Dec 11 00:58:35 2013
New Revision: 205880
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205880&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reverted:
2013-12-10 Bin Cheng
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41488
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Dec 13 11:36:22 2013
New Revision: 205959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205959&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58296
PR tree-optimizati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58296
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Dec 13 11:36:22 2013
New Revision: 205959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205959&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58296
PR tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
Sorry for the breakage, I will investigate this.
Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 1 02:39:52 2019
New Revision: 268439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88932
* tree-predcom.c (try_combine_chain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 1 02:56:41 2019
New Revision: 268440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2019-02-01 Bin Cheng
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87022
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Feb 1 03:11:08 2019
New Revision: 268441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-10-15 Bin Cheng
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87022
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
Given this is an regression, now I backported the fix to GCC-8 at r268441.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85284
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> What triggers this somehow (still didn't get to the "wrong" parts) is that we
> compute zero iterations for the conditional i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Apr 10 13:11:40 2018
New Revision: 259272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Apr 11 16:50:16 2018
New Revision: 259326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite
PR testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85720
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Mathias Stearn from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> > > Again, you are ignoring aliasing is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85793
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85793
--- Comment #3 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu May 17 11:25:43 2018
New Revision: 260317
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260317&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85793
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vectorizable_l
||2018-05-17
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from bin cheng ---
Confirmed. I will have a look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #37 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #36)
> On Tue, 22 May 2018, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85793
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu May 24 09:49:43 2018
New Revision: 260636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2018-05-17 Bin Cheng
Ric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85720
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri May 25 11:09:42 2018
New Revision: 260753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85720
* tree-loop-distribution.c (break_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85793
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86024
--- Comment #3 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > Or we may want to un-"SRA" such patterns, generating aggregate copies.
>
> I notice that store-merging does not merge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
>
> and I can very well imagine we're getting confused by find_base_term
> logic here.
>
> There's logic in IVOPTs to not generate IVs based on two different
> objec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #8 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
> >
> > --- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #10 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Thu Jul 18 08:38:09 2019
New Revision: 273570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/91137
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (struct i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #11 from bin cheng ---
Hi, suppose this patch should be backported to 8/7 if no further issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #13 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Jul 24 01:28:33 2019
New Revision: 273754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273754&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2019-07-18 Bin Cheng
PR tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #14 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Aug 30 11:02:48 2019
New Revision: 275064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2019-07-18 Bin Cheng
PR tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
--- Comment #15 from bin cheng ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Sep 2 10:10:44 2019
New Revision: 275304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2019-07-18 Bin Cheng
PR tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775
--- Comment #6 from bin cheng ---
The address type iv_use has pointer type and 64-bit precision, while iv_cands
added (by ivcanon pass) has unsigned int type. So decremental candidates are
skipped because of following code:
4620│ /* Check if w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83337
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks Jakub for fixing the issue instantly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83359
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Both loops guarded by the IFN are parallelized with the loop noted by
> the IFN outlined and the autopar scalar copy being a new loop.
>
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83320
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Dec 11 10:47:53 2017
New Revision: 255539
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255539&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83320
* gim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83365
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is this a duplicate of PR83337 thus fixed by Jakub?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80884
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Any progress?
Sorry, this is after interchange on my list. Hopefully I can get to it soon.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83114
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81228
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 83114 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Testcase modified for the testsuite:
>
> int a[8][10] = { [2][5] = 4 }, c;
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> short b;
> int i, d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82447
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Let's track the missed candidate [-128, 0] issue in PR78427.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80884
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #2)
> Confirmed. Any update on this amker?
>
> Started with:
>
> commit a9b41911523c1db8042f1f38d1ed814326ef
> Author: amker
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017
New Revision: 255828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79663
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017
New Revision: 255828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017
New Revision: 255828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-11-15 B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So before the change, ivotps dump is like:
[15.00%]:
_15 = (unsigned int) m_8(D);
ivtmp.10_16 = _15 * 8;
[100.00%]:
# i_5 = PHI
# sh_6 = PHI <256(2), sh_10(4)>
# ivtmp.10_18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So dump of optimized pass is:
;; Function f (f, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=2557, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=1)
Removing basic block 5
__attribute__((noinline))
f (int m)
{
int sh;
int i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So whole expanded rtl is:
;;
;; Full RTL generated for this function:
;;
1: NOTE_INSN_DELETED
5: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 2
2: r160:DI=%3:DI
3: NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG
4: r157:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> Either r160 should be SImode, or we should copy it to a SImode pseudo
> and use that instead throughout? Do we want to use it as DImode an
1 - 100 of 827 matches
Mail list logo
