https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #31 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #30)
> r10-6919 isn't good for Power, btw. Why would it *ever* be a good idea?
This heuristic avoid creating small gaps in hard reg file which prevent
assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #33 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #32)
> So it sounds like this helps for targets with tiny register sets?
I guess it helps for any target but of course more for ones with smaller
register set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #29 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry for all the troubles with my latest patch and thank you for fair
criticism. I've decided to revert the patch as soon as git starts working.
I'll work to find a better solution after this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #39 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've reverted the patch in trouble:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=5dc1390b41db5c1765e25fd21dad1a930a015aac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Jakub, thank you for the analysis. I've been working on this PR too. I hope
the patch will be ready on Friday or at the beginning of the next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94185
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you the reduced test. I've started to work on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94185
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I found the problem. LRA reused the same insn alternative when mem subreg was
changed.
The patch will be ready today or tomorrow at worst.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94298
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I think that the root of the problem is that IRA on register cost calculation
sub-pass chooses memory for the pseudo.
It happens because the current algorithm (which is just an adoption of old
recglass.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #25 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry, I can not reproduce this. With today trunk I have for pr45701-1.c (-Os
-mthumb):
history_expand_line_internal:
@ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
@ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70164
--- Comment #27 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #26)
> For what CPU did you configure GCC?
> With today's trunk I still see the same code as in comment #24.
>
> I can get the same code as you have in comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94663
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I bet IRA is confused by the subregs.
>
No, I don't think it is the case here.
(insn 19 18 20 4 (parallel [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95464
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Jakub, thank you for working on the PR and providing the test case.
It seems to me that the problem occurs in inheritance sub-pass of LRA. It is a
very complicated sub-pass. Making a fix and testing it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90174
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #10)
> Hi Vlad,
>
> Just curious if you had a chance to think about an approach to this that
> would be acceptable.
Sorry for not working on this issue more a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90174
--- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #12)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #11)
> > I just expressed my point of view to the bottom-up approach. If somebody
> > implements any new RA a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95674
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I looked at this problem.
All assignments are done in IRA (LRA does not change them). We can not make a
better assignment because scratches do not permit to store any preferences from
instruction constra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95674
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4)
> (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #3)
> > I looked at this problem.
> >
> > All assignments are done in IRA (LRA does not change them). We ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4)
> Well, often sel-sched just does not discriminate hardregs and pseudos when
> checking if renaming/substitution may be applied. Sure, as a matter of
> effi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
> Vladimir, can you look into this LRA inheritance issue?
Yes, I've started to work on this. I can not reproduce it on the current
trunk. But yesterday, I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 27 14:24:47 2019
New Revision: 278770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/90007
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90007
--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> Does that work? You cannot put all hard registers in memory I think?
> Or do we require that and it is just not documented?
It depends on insns. For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #26 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I think I find the problem root. We have
** Local #2: **
Choosing alt 0 in insn 1804: (0) =v (1) %0 (2) vm (3) v
{*fma_fmadd_df}
Creating newreg=4707 from oldreg=1801,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92283
--- Comment #27 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 29 22:04:21 2019
New Revision: 278865
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278865&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-29 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/92283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #3)
> 276.ira:
>
>
> /* Give the backend a chance to disallow the mode change. */
> if (GET_MODE_CLASS (xmode) != MODE_COMPLEX_INT
> && GET_MODE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #5)
>
> I'll investigate this problem more.
Hi, Andreas. The rtlanal code (!lra_in_progress) was added to GCC since the
first patch introducing LRA. As I wrot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 6 19:30:37 2019
New Revision: 279061
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279061&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-06 Andreas Krebbel
Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you, Andreas. I've committed the patch with your changes in the test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6)
>
> Vlad (or Jeff), can you point me to where this is supposed to be handled?
> I don't think I see where LRA verifies the reg_renumber[regno] values are
> stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7)
> A very interesting case, Peter. I reproduced the case too. I can take it
> from here if you don't mind. The solution I see for this problem is to
> chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #7)
>
>
> I'm guessing this was never a problem before I added the code to not add
> conflicts for copies. Before then, any two pseudos/registers that were li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Dec 10 22:07:57 2019
New Revision: 279204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/92796
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Note, it isn't about , using rm in the first alternative of the
> reverted define_insn works well too, as well as swapping the alternatives
> (that is in that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Dec 19 21:59:47 2019
New Revision: 279596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-19 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/92905
* lr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for the report. I've started working on it. As changes in
constraint processing needs a lot of testing, I think the patch will be read on
Friday or on the next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93207
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 10 20:07:45 2020
New Revision: 280133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2020-01-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR inline-asm/93207
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93207
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 10 20:18:00 2020
New Revision: 280135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280135&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2020-01-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR inline-asm/93207
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry, I did a mistake in PR number and automatic commits reporting did not
work.
Here are the patches fixing the PR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=280133
https://gcc.gnu.org/vie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 10 20:45:19 2020
New Revision: 280138
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=280138&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2020-01-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR inline-asm/93027
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
>
> However, if I add -mavx, I get
>
> vmovapd %xmm0, %xmm2
> vmovapd %xmm1, %xmm4
> vmovapd %xmm1, %xmm0
> vaddsd %xmm0, %xmm4, %xmm0
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93272
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #3)
> Created attachment 47714 [details]
> IRA EH fix - only when added at start of BB
>
> A probably better version of the fix. This version only reverts the
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91320
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91320
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I've committed a patch solving PR91333. The patch also solves the current PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=2a07345c4f8dabc286fc470e76c53473e5bc3eb7
So I guess we can close the current
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93055
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Vlad, any thoughts on this?
A pseudo in the loop happens to be spilled. So the pseudo is changed onto
its equivalence which is an invariant to the loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> > Fixed by Vlad's patch on the trunk.
>
> This patch causes regressions:
> aarch64:
>
I've committed one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91333
--- Comment #16 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > I think what matters is whether the new asm for those is the same or better
> > than before. If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93564
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank your for reporting this.
I've changed RA heuristics. It is very rare case when you change heuristics
and there is no one SPEC benchmark with performance degradation. Usually some
benchmarks improv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93561
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this. It seems the bug did not manifested itself
before as the most targets have virtual hard registers as the last hard regs.
I'll commit your patch today.
Thank you again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90378
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
> Miscompilation occurs in same configuration: arm-linux-gnueabihf at -O2
> -flto.
>
I don't see how these two patches *directly* resulted in miscompilation.
Although it might trigger some latent bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93564
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I checked the new results
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=288.240.0
It seems the patch solved the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93974
--- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #4)
> I'm CCing Vlad, since I need some guidance/help for some LRA questions.
>
> Vlad, do you have some guidance on what should be done when we see
> an address l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #27 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-06
21:36:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> You are right, your suggestions is what I sketched in comment #21 as choices 1
> or 2. Sorry for my unclear expalanation of what was actually ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56225
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-07
17:15:30 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Feb 7 17:15:02 2013
New Revision: 195856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195856
Log:
2013-02-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56246
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-08
16:39:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=generic -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fpic
> needed for me.
> Regressed with LRA merge.
I'll be working on it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56246
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-08
21:59:16 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Feb 8 21:59:11 2013
New Revision: 195902
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195902
Log:
2013-02-08 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-12
17:44:56 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Feb 12 17:44:47 2013
New Revision: 195988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195988
Log:
2013-02-12 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-13
15:15:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> Unfortunately I'm not really familiar with the live range splitting code;
> maybe
> Vladimir can help with this?
Yes, Ulrich. I've started
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-13
17:40:33 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Feb 13 17:40:22 2013
New Revision: 196019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196019
Log:
2013-02-13 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56339
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-15
16:48:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Perhaps for regmove IRA classes should be set up unconditionally:
>
> Index: regmove.c
> ===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56348
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56348
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-15
19:17:16 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Feb 15 19:17:02 2013
New Revision: 196090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196090
Log:
2013-02-15 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56348
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
--- Comment #15 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-22
16:30:33 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Feb 22 16:30:22 2013
New Revision: 196223
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196223
Log:
2013-02-22 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-02-26
20:45:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 29544 [details]
> gcc48-pr56461-2.patch
>
Sorry, I should have checked on leaks when I submitted LRA first time.
The patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54338
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-08-31
18:35:17 UTC ---
IRA can not find super set of GENERAL_REGS and IWMMXT_GR_REGS. It should not
happen as ALL_REGS exits as the last resort for this.
GCC documentation contains
@findex ALL_REGS
@fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54991
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-21
02:47:32 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Sun Oct 21 02:47:28 2012
New Revision: 192645
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192645
Log:
2012-10-20 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55048
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-24
15:35:17 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 24 15:35:12 2012
New Revision: 192770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192770
Log:
2012-10-24 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55049
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-24
17:35:50 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 24 17:35:37 2012
New Revision: 192771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192771
Log:
2012-10-24 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55055
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-24
20:02:12 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 24 20:02:08 2012
New Revision: 192779
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192779
Log:
2012-10-24 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55067
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-25
02:31:36 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Oct 25 02:31:31 2012
New Revision: 192794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192794
Log:
2012-10-24 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55050
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-25
04:20:00 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Oct 25 04:19:43 2012
New Revision: 192797
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192797
Log:
2012-10-24 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55068
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-25
04:20:00 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Oct 25 04:19:43 2012
New Revision: 192797
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192797
Log:
2012-10-24 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55106
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-29
00:42:30 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Oct 29 00:42:25 2012
New Revision: 192904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192904
Log:
2012-10-28 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55106
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-29
14:42:21 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Oct 29 14:42:05 2012
New Revision: 192944
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192944
Log:
2012-10-29 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55116
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-29
16:37:08 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Oct 29 16:36:57 2012
New Revision: 192949
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192949
Log:
2012-10-29 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-31
18:41:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 31 18:41:18 2012
New Revision: 193042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193042
Log:
2012-10-31 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-01
19:02:48 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Nov 1 19:02:40 2012
New Revision: 193065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193065
Log:
2012-11-01 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55130
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-02
14:44:23 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:44:12 2012
New Revision: 193096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193096
Log:
2012-11-02 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-02
14:44:24 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:44:12 2012
New Revision: 193096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193096
Log:
2012-11-02 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-05
16:38:34 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Nov 5 16:38:27 2012
New Revision: 193170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193170
Log:
2012-11-05 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55122
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:11:13 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:11:08 2012
New Revision: 193310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193310
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:20:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:20:15 2012
New Revision: 193311
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193311
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:43:35 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:43:30 2012
New Revision: 193317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193317
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-09
14:28:49 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 9 14:28:40 2012
New Revision: 193361
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193361
Log:
2012-11-09 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55154
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-09
15:33:27 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 9 15:33:19 2012
New Revision: 193364
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193364
Log:
2012-11-09 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57468
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57447
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57676
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
That is a pretty interesting test case. Roughly speaking, we have chains of
divmodsi4 insns:
p1 / p2
...
p3 / p1
P1 (and many others) gets AX. But it is necessary for P3 in the second insn.
So on each
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57963
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thanks, Andreas. I've reproduced the bug. I hope to fix it on this week.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 30643 [details]
> rh995446.i
>
> We've got this reported in
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995446 too.
> I've created a self-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58335
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58335
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Sep 12 18:23:09 2013
New Revision: 202536
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202536&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-12 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/58335
* lra-elim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58418
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Sep 16 15:12:22 2013
New Revision: 202630
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-16 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/58418
* lra-cons
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58438
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Sep 18 18:24:49 2013
New Revision: 202714
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/58438
* lr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-18
14:56:46 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Aug 18 14:56:36 2011
New Revision: 177865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177865
Log:
2011-08-17 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49890
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-18
17:06:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Aug 18 17:06:18 2011
New Revision: 177874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177874
Log:
2011-08-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-19
22:17:29 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Aug 19 22:17:26 2011
New Revision: 177916
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177916
Log:
2011-08-19 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-05-10
19:58:09 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu May 10 19:58:01 2012
New Revision: 187373
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187373
Log:
2012-05-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53700
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-06-18
18:34:12 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:34:01 2012
New Revision: 188750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188750
Log:
2012-06-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
1 - 100 of 915 matches
Mail list logo
