public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "lucier at math dot purdue dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug optimization/13674] ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:378 on PPC64
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:32:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040115233207.836.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040113200005.13674.lucier@math.purdue.edu>


------- Additional Comments From lucier at math dot purdue dot edu  2004-01-15 23:32 -------
Subject: Re:  ICE in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:378 on PPC64

> A workaround is to use -fnew-ra.

Thank you for that suggestion.  Indeed, I could not find an example 
where -mcpu=G5 -fnew-ra either generated incorrect code or ICEd.

However, I would call -fnew-ra a partial workaround for the following 
reasons:

(a) Mainline gcc takes about 6 times as long to compile my code with 
-fnew-ra than without.

(b) For the most part, there is a performance regression of the 
compiled coded by about 50% with -fnew-ra than without.

(c) I believe that much of the new-ra development is sitting in its own 
branch, and it seems unlikely to me that this branch will be merged 
into mainline in time for the release of 3.4.

For these reasons I don't find -fnew-ra a complete or viable workaround.

It would be nice if Michael Matz were CC'ed on this discussion



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13674


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-01-15 23:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-13 20:00 [Bug target/13674] New: " lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
2004-01-15 19:51 ` [Bug optimization/13674] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-15 19:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-15 23:32 ` lucier at math dot purdue dot edu [this message]
2004-01-21  4:28 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2004-01-21  4:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-21  4:52 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2004-01-21 21:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-23 22:07 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-24 18:42 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-25  2:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-27 13:10 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-03-10 14:59 ` [Bug optimization/13674] [3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-06-11  0:43 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/13674] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-12 14:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-21  3:41 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/13674] [4.0 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-07  3:30 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-07 15:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-07 15:40 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040115233207.836.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).