http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-13
15:43:39 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 13 15:43:36 2011
New Revision: 182288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182288
Log:
2011-12-13 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-13
15:58:17 UTC ---
Indeed it is and I have just verified that it is also fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50628
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-13
16:08:19 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 13 16:08:14 2011
New Revision: 182289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182289
Log:
2011-12-13 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50628
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
Bug #: 51583
Summary: One more missing force_gimple_operand in SRA
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-16
19:35:07 UTC ---
I have just discovered this has not been fixed by the patch to dela with PR
50569. I'm moving this to the top of my todo list now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-19
14:33:21 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 19 14:33:18 2011
New Revision: 182483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182483
Log:
2011-12-19 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-19
16:47:35 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 19 16:47:28 2011
New Revision: 182488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182488
Log:
2011-12-19 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51600
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
at gcc dot |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-05
13:39:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Where 4.6 says:
>
> Candidate (2069): this
> ! Disqualifying this - Encountered a bit-field access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-05
16:16:29 UTC ---
I can reproduce the segfault when compiling both the testcase from
comment #8 and the original unreduced test case on the 4.6 branch but
not on my trunk checkout (revision 182785). I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
18:40:16 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 18:40:09 2012
New Revision: 183023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183023
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
18:40:17 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 18:40:09 2012
New Revision: 183023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183023
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
19:52:13 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:52:06 2012
New Revision: 183029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183029
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
20:03:15 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:03:08 2012
New Revision: 183031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183031
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin Jambor
PR tree-opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nobled at dreamwidth dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-09
22:42:00 UTC ---
The problem is much more fundamental than just a clone removal while
also walking the clones of the same function although that is the
reason why we segfault. But that would be almos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-12
13:47:04 UTC ---
I think that SRA's part of the fix is what I have just posted to the mailing
list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00613.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor 2012-01-18
11:23:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 26362
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26362
patch-in-progress
I talked to richi on IRC yesterday and we agreed that because we rely
on build_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87615
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
I have just posted the patch for review in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00456.html
With it the compile time of the testcase goes down from approximately
340 seconds to about 160 seconds (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the patch to the mailing list for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00460.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 10 12:45:47 2018
New Revision: 266953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Check that an argument is a pointer
2018-12-10 Martin Jambo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2018-12-10
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> What's the state on trunk?
I should have my own measurements only in January but according to
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/spec_report/branch the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84490
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
I should have my own numbers only in January, but according to
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/spec_report/branch there
is a 7% regression at -Ofast and generic march/mtune on Zen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:14:22 2018
New Revision: 267298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Assert that ptr is a pointer
2018-12-20 Martin Jambor
||2018-12-21
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:37:33 2019
New Revision: 267974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Check that an argument is a pointer
2019-01-16 Martin Jamb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jan 16 15:41:07 2019
New Revision: 267975
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267975&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Check that an argument is a pointer
2019-01-16 Martin Jamb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
And even my own measurements show 6% slowdown at both -O2 and -Ofast with
generic march/tuning against GCC 7 and now also 5% slowdown at -Ofast and
native march/tuning against GCC 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87615
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sun Jan 20 20:17:02 2019
New Revision: 268107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Limit AA walking in IPA summary generation
2019-01-20 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87615
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jamborm at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 45511
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45511&action=edit
Untested fix
I'm currently testing this fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #11)
> Actually, looking at Martin's patch, I guess ipcp transfrom should do
> the same as inliner - do not cleanup cfg but call
> delete_unreachable_blocks_update_callg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45504|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, I did that too and proposed a patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01525.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Sat Jan 26 22:19:17 2019
New Revision: 268305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR ipa/88933] Careful CFG cleanup in IPA-CP function transformation
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88933
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87863
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Feb 1 16:22:13 2019
New Revision: 268452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268452&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR hsa/87863] Set assembler name of group and global variables early
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87863
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Which I suppose means it is mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89209
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
For the record, the following is the most likely fix, but let me think
about it a bit more tomorrow before I submit it.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index e4851daaa3f..7efd0a62ebb 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89209
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
HWell, no. We create a special default-def SSA to insert into the IL
the information that an uninitialized value is being loaded but now
the SSA has aggregate type, which should not happen, I guess (even
tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted a proposed fix to the mailing list as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00419.html
(please ignore the stuff I mistakenly pasted to the subject line).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Apr 11 13:30:53 2018
New Revision: 259319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve IPA-CP handling of self-recursive calls
2018-04-11 Martin Jam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85421
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c++ |ipa
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine. Fixed by the following:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-cp.c b/gcc/ipa-cp.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85421
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Apr 17 08:48:41 2018
New Revision: 259432
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259432&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Call expand_all_artificial_thunks in ipa-cp if necessary
2018-04-17 Ma
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Confirmed and I guess mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I guess the best fix is to move the clone-redirecting logic to
cgraph::create_clone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 43979
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43979&action=edit
Untested WIP fix
I have to leave office for a few hours, I'm attaching an untested fix I have so
far. I will c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43979|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85449
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, I can see a failure with trunk but not with my fix for PR 85447. Looking
into IPA-CP dumps of both, I guess that although the mechanism of this bug
might be slightly different, the fix will be the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Thinking about this a bit more, there can be cases where only a subset
(potentially empty) of clones of self-recursive edges of the cloned edges are
to be redirected... I will adjust the patch accordingly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85449
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
All right, this is a different bug, the description in the summary describes it
fairly precisely. To the extent to which I am still awake, I believe the fix
is the patch below. I will test it properly tomor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85449
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
I believe I understand the issue and will prepare a testcase from scratch.
Possibly after I test/submit the patch if it takes too long. Thanks for your
effort!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85449
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I believe I understand the issue and will prepare a testcase from scratch.
Possibly after I test/submit the patch if it takes too long. Thanks for your
effort!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43981|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85449
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 43990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43990&action=edit
Simple testcase
This is a simple testcase. Let me prepare the final patch then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Eventually, we have decided to go for a more limited fix which I have posted to
the mailing list: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00995.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85449
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the following fix to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00996.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85449
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85447
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
According to my latest numbers. 454.alculix compiled with gcc 7 is 3% slower
than gcc 6 at -O2 but trunk (r259234) is as fast as gcc 6.
||2018-04-27
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
This is another stupid omission, I forgot that for by-reference aggregate
values, one has to check the agg_preserved of the jump function.
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-cp.c b/gcc/ipa-cp.c
index 1b8f335fd32..4f28a55b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85549
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted the fix to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg01236.html
at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted a proposed fix to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg00468.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
When benchmarking GCC 8 on an older Ivy Bridge Xeon, I also got 549.fotonik3d_r
verification error just with -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri May 11 15:55:15 2018
New Revision: 260165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-11 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri May 11 15:58:29 2018
New Revision: 260166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-11 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
The bug is latent on gcc7 and gcc6, I plan to commit the fix there at the end
of this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu May 17 12:18:06 2018
New Revision: 260319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-17 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu May 17 12:23:34 2018
New Revision: 260320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats
2018-05-17 Martin Jambo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 82804, which changed state.
Bug 82804 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance
deviation with r237185
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84613
Bug 84613 depends on bug 82804, which changed state.
Bug 82804 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance
deviation with r237185
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 82805, which changed state.
Bug 82805 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance
deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84613
Bug 84613 depends on bug 82805, which changed state.
Bug 82805 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance
deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805
What|Removed
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the following simple example with GCC 8 on an x86_64 with
just -O2 -S:
int *a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86270
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84481
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Regarding the generic tuning issue, the difference comes down to the
order of the three instructions at offset 46 in the hottest loop below
(left is fast, right is slow, both along with their perf samples):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
The IPA (and first tree) dumps look all normal. But even when I patch IPA-CP
to create a clone but not to modify it in any way, I still get the segfault.
I'll look where we start diverging next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
After a more careful look: The testcase from comment #5 calls
__builtin_alloca(1) and then tries to vnsprintf into that memory, so I
decided I'd go back to the original testcase.
It indeed does segfaults whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
As early as the ssa dump we have, in the same function,
:
__len_13 = _12;
__builtin_va_end (&__args);
std::allocator::allocator (&D.122645);
_1 = (sizetype) __len_13;
_2 = __s_7 + _1;
std::__c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
And in the previous dump (fixup_cfg1), we have
:
__len = D.127713;
__builtin_va_end (&__args);
std::allocator::allocator (&D.122645);
_1 = (sizetype) __len;
_2 = __s + _1;
std::__cxx11::basic
601 - 700 of 2398 matches
Mail list logo
