public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
@ 2004-07-28 17:01 gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-28 17:36 ` [Bug target/16803] " bangerth at dealii dot org
` (16 more replies)
0 siblings, 17 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-28 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
Description:
A non-optimal code sequence is illustrated. Several invariant instructions could be hoisted from a loop. A store with update form could be used. A branch on count instruction could be used. Any or all would improve the loop's performance. Duplicate using gcc 3.5 and command line:
gcc -O3 -m64 -c test.c
Testcase:
#define SOME_CONST 20
unsigned short *x;
int y;
int main ()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i<= y+SOME_CONST; i++)
x[i] = 0;
return 0;
}
Assembly:
Currently gcc 3.5 generates the following code:
ld 5,.LC0@toc(2) -- load base of "y"
lwz 3,0(5) -- load "y"
addi 9,3,20 -- compute "y+SOME_CONST"
cmpwi 7,9,0 -- determine if loop should be entered.
blt- 7,.L2 -- branch around loop if not.
ld 7,.LC1@toc(2) -- load address of "x"
li 8,0 -- initialize "i"
li 6,0 -- load value to store.
.L4:
ld 10,0(7) -- load base of "x" - loop invariant
sldi 12,8,1 -- compute index into "x" (i * 2)
addi 0,8,1 -- increment i
extsw 8,0 -- sign extend i
sthx 6,12,10 -- store "x[i]"
lwz 4,0(5) -- load "y" - loop invariant
addi 11,4,20 -- compute "y+SOME_CONST" - loop invariant
cmpw 0,11,8 -- compare result of add with i
bge+ 0,.L4 -- loop back.
Remove the invariant instructions and use a store with update and this code improves to:
ld 5,.LC0@toc(2) -- load base of "y"
lwz 3,0(5) -- load "y"
addi 9,3,20 -- compute "y+SOME_CONST"
cmpwi 7,9,0 -- determine if loop should be entered.
blt- 7,.L7 -- branch around loop if not.
ld 7,.LC1@toc(2) -- load address of "x"
li 8,0 -- initialize "i"
li 6,0 -- load value to store.
ld 10,0(7) -- load base of "x" - loop invariant
.L5:
addi 0,8,1 -- increment i
extsw 8,0 -- sign extend i
sthu 6,2(10) -- use store with update instead of sldi/sthx
cmpw 0,9,8 -- compare result of add with i
bge+ 0,.L5 -- loop back.
This could be further improved to the following with the use of bct:
ld 5,.LC0@toc(2) -- load base of "y"
li 8,0 -- initialize "i"
lwz 3,0(5) -- load "y"
addi 9,3,20 -- compute "y+SOME_CONST"
cmpwi 7,9,0 -- determine if loop should be entered.
blt- 7,.L7 -- branch around loop if not.
ld 7,.LC1@toc(2) -- load address of "x"
li 6,0 -- load value to store.
ld 10,0(7) -- load base of "x" - loop invariant
mtctr 11 -- load count register
.L5:
sthu 6,2(10) -- use store with update instead of sldi/sthx
bdnz+ 0,.L5 -- loop back.
The loop has gone from 8 instructions and a branch to 1 instruction and a branch.
--
Summary: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from
loop.
Product: gcc
Version: 3.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: steinmtz at us dot ibm dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,steinmtz at us dot ibm
dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc64-linux
GCC host triplet: powerpc64-linux
GCC target triplet: powerpc64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-28 17:36 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-28 18:33 ` falk at debian dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-07-28 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|other |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-28 17:36 ` [Bug target/16803] " bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-07-28 18:33 ` falk at debian dot org
2004-07-28 18:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: falk at debian dot org @ 2004-07-28 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2004-07-28 18:33 -------
It would be nice if you could try this on the lno branch, since that is
where all the loop work is going on at the moment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-28 17:36 ` [Bug target/16803] " bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-28 18:33 ` falk at debian dot org
@ 2004-07-28 18:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-29 0:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-28 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Keywords| |missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-28 18:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-29 0:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 17:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-29 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|target |tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-29 0:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-30 17:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 17:49 ` [Bug target/16803] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-30 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-30 17:41 -------
I doubt LNO would help here, it looks like a backend issue.
But you can give it a try.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-07-30 17:41:55
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-30 17:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-30 17:49 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 19:00 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-30 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-30 17:49 -------
Not a tree optimization issue.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|tree-optimization |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-30 17:49 ` [Bug target/16803] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-30 19:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 19:15 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-30 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-30 19:00 -------
But an rtl one though as I would not think this does not effect another target with doloops.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|target |rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-30 19:00 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-07-30 19:15 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-30 12:55 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-07-30 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-30 19:15 -------
Branch on count is not used since we do not know whether the loop is not
infinite (which would be the case if y == MAX_INT - SOME_CONST).
The fact that neither of the two rtl loop invariant motion passes nor PRE moves
the invariants out of the loop is weird. I will have a look at that.
Zdenek
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-07-30 19:15 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-08-30 12:55 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-30 13:39 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-30 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-30 12:55 -------
Invariant motion does not recognize y as invariant, since we believe that store
to x[i] may alias y.
As far as I understand the C standard, this is wrong, since short should not be
compatible with int, but maybe I misunderstood this. Diego?
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dnovillo at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-30 12:55 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-08-30 13:39 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-31 4:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-30 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-30 13:39 -------
Similarly for the load of x -- x is assumed to be clobbered by the store
to x[i].
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-30 13:39 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-08-31 4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-31 22:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-31 4:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31 04:02 -------
Actually this is the problem which I am seeing and I posted an initialize fix, the problem comes from
the fact that the cost that lim thinks it should do the load is just one.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg02534.html> for the patch
and <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg01545.html> for the my findings.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|rtl-optimization |tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-31 4:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-08-31 22:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-27 3:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-08-31 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31 22:41 -------
Patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg02662.html>.
Related aliasing bug here in PR 17252.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-08-31 22:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-27 3:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-11 17:40 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-27 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-09-27 03:47 -------
Patch causes other problems and I don't have time to investage them.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
Keywords|patch |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-09-27 3:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-11 17:40 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-11 18:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-11 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11 17:40 -------
FSF HEAD 2004-11-11 gives better code, with the invariants moved out of the loop,
.main:
ld 9,.LC1@toc(2)
lwz 11,0(9)
addi 11,11,20
extsw 11,11
cmpwi 7,11,0
blt 7,.L2
ld 9,.LC2@toc(2)
li 10,0
li 7,0
ld 8,0(9)
.align 4
.L4:
addi 0,10,1
sldi 9,10,1
extsw 10,0
sthx 7,9,8
cmpw 7,11,10
bge 7,.L4
.L2:
li 3,0
blr
but this has 6 insns in the loop instead of 5. Investigating ...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |nathan at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-11 17:40 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-11 18:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-12 9:24 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-15 1:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-11 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-11 18:19 -------
Woops I I filed PR 18431 (which I think is the same problem well the testcases are the same), I will note
I copied both -m32 and -m64 loops to show where the problem is and with arrays we get much better
code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-11 18:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-12 9:24 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-15 1:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-12 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-12 09:24 -------
We cannot generate better code, without having a different meaning for the
sign_extend action that occurs in the loop.
As zdenek points out, we cannot use dbra, because we cannot tell if the loop
will actually terminate -- because of the <= continuation condition. on ppc64
ints are 32 bits and pointers are 64 bits. the base address 'x' is a pointer
to an array that we cannot tell the bounds of -- x might point into the middle
of an array. Therefore both negative and positive ints of any value might
be valid offsets.
If the loop is unbounded, then there is the possibility of wrap-around during
the increment of i. What happens in this case is undefined. We could therefore
remove the sign-extension from int->long, and optimize further on the basis that
undefined things never happen in a well-formed program. Unfortunately we cannot
do this with the current RTL structure. The sign-extend operation is used in
two different circumstances, (a) when it really is sign extending a shorter
(valid) value to a longer representation, and (b) when we're truncating a
possibly out-of-range value. (b) is undefined, yet we do not represent that
undefinedness, and cannot distinguish it from (a), which is well defined.
I will add a meta-bug noting this problem with extend operations.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nathan at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-12 9:24 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-11-15 1:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-15 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-15 01:58 -------
Now I see what is the difference between this and PR 18431, <= vs <.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
[not found] <bug-16803-8614@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-07 16:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-28 21:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-28 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
[not found] <bug-16803-8614@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-02 17:16 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-07 16:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-07 16:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 21:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-07 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:24 -------
I forgot to say the loop now looks like:
L4:
sthx r0,r2,r11
addi r2,r2,2
bdnz L4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
[not found] <bug-16803-8614@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-02 17:16 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-07 16:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-07 16:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 21:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-07 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 16:23 -------
Fixed in 4.2.0 by the patch which fixed PR 18527.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop.
[not found] <bug-16803-8614@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-11-02 17:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-07 16:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-11-02 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 17:16 -------
All P1 enhancements not targeted towards 4.1, moving to P5.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P1 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16803
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-28 21:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-28 17:01 [Bug other/16803] New: PowerPC - invariant code motion could be removed from loop gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-28 17:36 ` [Bug target/16803] " bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-28 18:33 ` falk at debian dot org
2004-07-28 18:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-29 0:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 17:41 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 17:49 ` [Bug target/16803] " steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 19:00 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-30 19:15 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-30 12:55 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-30 13:39 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-31 4:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-31 22:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-27 3:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-11 17:40 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-11 18:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-12 9:24 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-11-15 1:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-16803-8614@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-11-02 17:16 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/16803] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-07 16:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-07 16:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-28 21:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
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).