https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #30 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed for GCC 6.
I've asked for a backport to GCC 5 and if approved I'll do it after it had a
bit of time to bake on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Yeah,
> (insn 12 11 13 (set (reg:DI 85)
> (lshiftrt:DI (subreg:DI (reg/v:OI 79 [ v32u128_1 ]) 0)
> (const_int 1 [0x1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at the RTL dumps before the patch in cse1 we had:
(insn 27 26 28 2 (set (reg:V16QI 138)
(const_vector:V16QI [
(const_int 0 [0])
(const_int 0 [0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
CC'ing Kirill for AVX512 opinion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69676
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69675
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I suspected as such.
I'll try to dig deeper next week
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68715
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another testcase:
int a, b, c, d, f, g;
int e[1], h[1];
void fn2 ();
void fn3 ();
void
fn1 ()
{
fn2 ();
b = 0;
for (; b < 10; b++)
;
}
void
fn2 ()
{
if (a)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-mtpcs-frame or -mapcs seem to help exposing some other issue that I'm having
trouble tracking down.
-mtpcs-frame or -mapcs affect the behaviour of
TARGET_CONDITIONAL_REGISTER_USAGE on ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, digging through the reload and post-reload split dumps I noticed this
curiosity in arm.md:
(define_split
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "s_register_operand" "")
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You're right.
Any change in the flags or to the code that appears to makes the failure go
away just happens to reduce register pressure.
In the failing case the reload dump shows that LRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37642&action=edit
Reload pass dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63206
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that this has gone latent on trunk with r233267
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #16 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Yeah, my preference is to back out the cse.c one-liner for GCC 6.
IMO the cse.c patch is the correct fix for the code quality regression seen
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
The following testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69822
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
The following testcase ICEs for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671
--- Comment #18 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > > Yeah, my preference is to back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #31 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:11:26 2016
New Revision: 233454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #19 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:11:26 2016
New Revision: 233454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #32 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:13:05 2016
New Revision: 233455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Adjust tests after fix for PR 65932
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69353
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #23 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Feb 17 13:39:30 2016
New Revision: 233495
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/69161: Don't ignore mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #24 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Feb 17 13:42:35 2016
New Revision: 233496
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233496&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/69161: Don't use spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69854
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We'd need a testcase that shows a regression resulting from this code not being
run i.e. code that became worse after r197530 (or wrong code or an ICE) and is
fixed by removing that &q
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69857
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, that's an approach that can be taken. Once such a case is found, you could
also try using a reducer program like creduce to create a small testcase
appropriate for the testsuite.
Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm*
Consider the code:
#include
atomic_ullong foo;
int glob;
int
main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69886
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69886
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69903
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69903
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
More complete stack trace:
ice.c:7:23: internal compiler error: in add_stmt, at cp/semantics.c:385
volatile int x = i;
^
0x772687 add_stmt(tree_node*)
$TOP
: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69904
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana.radhakrishnan at arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69915
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69904
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Feb 24 11:00:28 2016
New Revision: 233658
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233658&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/69875 Fix atomic_loaddi e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69875
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong |[4.9/5 Regression] Wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69886
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed Feb 24 13:00:10 2016
New Revision: 233662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcse] PR rtl-optimization/69886: Check target
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
Consider the code:
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69943
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69943
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
On second thought, reassociating signed addition is not legal in general
because we might introduce signed overflow where one didn't exist before.
Changing your integer example to use uns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Feb 26 15:59:45 2016
New Revision: 233744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/69613: Ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
--- Comment #16 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Feb 26 16:02:21 2016
New Revision: 233745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Set TREE_TARGET_GL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69983
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The function that changes is:
test_corners_sisd_si (Int32x1 b)
{
force_simd_si (b);
b = b >> 31;
force_simd_si (b);
b = b >> 0;
b += b >> 33; /* { dg-warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70016
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70016
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
this_target_ira_int->x_init_cost is NULL when it's used, causing the ICE.
I would have expected target_reinit to have properly initialised it when called
through save_target_globals_defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00038.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not currently looking into this as I'm rather stumped by regalloc
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
After r218767 (an LTO ICE fix from what I can tell) gcc started assuming
-fomit-frame-pointer
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The testcase:
int a, b, d, e, f;
int c[9];
void
fn1 ()
{
e = 1;
for (; e >= 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70050
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69904
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> I'll propose a patch to disallow copying of load-exclusive insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00211.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70044
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70044
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69904
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 3 17:25:43 2016
New Revision: 233941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR rtl-optimization/69904: Disallow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69904
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69941
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry, here's the standalone testcase using __builtin_abort:
int a = 0;
int b = 0;
int c = 0;
int e = 0;
int f = 0;
int *g = &e;
int fn1() { return b ? a : b; }
int main() {
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 4 11:09:11 2016
New Revision: 233964
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233964&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64][testsuite] PR target/70004: Remove che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70087
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70119
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right, I see we have the same issue on aarch64 as on x86.
So what would be the accepted solution here?
I've been playing with a patch to simplify-rtx to move the subreg inside the
AN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4, 5.3.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrewm.roberts at sky dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70136
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70044
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: arm
Consider the testcase:
void foo(unsigned a, float b)
{
unsigned c = (unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70184
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Things are bad already at expand time:
2: r111:SI=r0:SI
3: r112:SF=r1:SF
4: NOTE_INSN_FUNCTION_BEG
7: r0:SI=r111:SI
8: r0:SF=r112:SF
9: r0:SI=call [`__aeabi_f2uiz']
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70184
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Does -fno-ter fix the issue?
> How does the tree level look?
You mean -fno-tree-ter?
That gives:
foo:
@ args = 0, pretend = 0, fra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70119
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37941&action=edit
Example patch
In the interests of getting a concrete proposal out and hammering out a co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69245
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 11 15:27:24 2016
New Revision: 234141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/700
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Mar 11 15:27:24 2016
New Revision: 234141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/700
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
501 - 600 of 2215 matches
Mail list logo
