* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
@ 2004-12-19 13:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-19 19:41 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-19 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-19 13:23 -------
In 3.3.2, the main loop is:
L7:
lwz r6,0(r9)
cmpwi cr0,r6,2
beq- cr0,L1
lwzu r7,4(r9)
cmpwi cr0,r7,2
beq- cr0,L1
lwzu r8,4(r9)
cmpwi cr0,r8,2
beq- cr0,L1
lwzu r10,4(r9)
cmpwi cr0,r10,2
beq- cr0,L1
addi r9,r9,4
cmpw cr0,r9,r4
bne+ cr0,L7
in 4.0.0:
L58:
mr r9,r11
L7:
cmpw cr7,r4,r9
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,0(r9)
addi r11,r9,4
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,0(r11)
mr r2,r11
mr r9,r11
addi r11,r11,4
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,0(r11)
mr r9,r11
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,8(r2)
addi r9,r2,8
addi r11,r2,12
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,12(r2)
mr r9,r11
addi r11,r2,16
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,16(r2)
mr r9,r11
addi r11,r2,20
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,20(r2)
mr r9,r11
addi r11,r2,24
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
beq- cr7,L5
lwz r0,24(r2)
mr r9,r11
addi r11,r2,28
cmpwi cr7,r0,2
bne+ cr7,L58
Notice how in 3.3.2, we used lwzu, that is needed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |minor
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|c |rtl-optimization
Ever Confirmed| |1
GCC host triplet|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Known to fail| |4.0.0
Known to work| |3.3.2
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-12-19 13:23:03
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
2004-12-19 13:23 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-19 19:41 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-19 22:04 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-19 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-19 19:41 -------
Unroller splits the induction variables, so that the final code looks basically
like
if (a[0] == 2)
return a;
if (a[1] == 2)
return a + 4;
if (a[2] == 2)
return a + 8;
...
if (a[7] == 2)
return a + 28;
a+=32;
Which is good in some cases, but obviously not here.
However even with -fno-split-ivs-in-unroller we do not get the autoincrements;
we also need -fno-ivopts. The reason is that with ivopts the code looks like
a = a.1;
a.1 = a + 1;
if (*a == 2)
return a;
Whereas the old loop optimizer makes things look like
a = a + 1
if (*a == 2)
return 0;
by changing the initial value of a, which enables the autoinc creation pass to
work.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
2004-12-19 13:23 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-19 19:41 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-19 22:04 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-19 22:11 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (17 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-19 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-19 22:04 -------
With minor adjustment in ivopts, we get the same code as in 3.3 with fno-split-
ivs-in-unroller, and more reasonably looking code without; I'm testing the
patch just now.
Of course we cannot have autoincrements and iv splitting at the same time. It
might be possible to use some heuristics to disable iv splitting if it does not
seem useful. Possibly even better would be to add generation of autoincrements
to loop optimizer, but this would require fixing cse so that it handles them
correctly.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-19 22:04 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-19 22:11 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-12-20 15:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2004-12-19 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-19 22:11 -------
Thanks Zdenek. Very frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that we are noticing only
relatively late these problems: such loops seem *so* simple and common...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-19 22:11 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2004-12-20 15:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 15:13 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (15 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-20 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-20 15:04 -------
And, Paolo, when was the last time you looked at microbenchmarks? ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-20 15:04 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-20 15:13 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-12-20 15:22 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (14 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2004-12-20 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-20 15:13 -------
;) Well, many people believe I look too *often* at microbenchmarks... ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-20 15:13 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2004-12-20 15:22 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-12-20 18:44 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2004-12-20 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-20 15:22 -------
More seriously, I think that we (the libstdc++-v3 people) should more carefully
test the effect of the new optimizations on std::algorithm: indeed, we are talking
about benchmarks, not pointless microbenchmarks: std:algorithm is *full* of small
loops like this one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-20 15:22 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2004-12-20 18:44 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-22 16:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-20 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-20 18:44 -------
Patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01554.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-20 18:44 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-22 16:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-25 20:32 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
` (11 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-22 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-22 16:45 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> ;) Well, many people believe I look too *often* at microbenchmarks... ;)
Also sometimes micro benchmarks come from bigger code and shows up in the profile as the hot loop.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-22 16:46 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-25 20:32 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2004-12-25 22:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pcarlini at suse dot de @ 2004-12-25 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-25 20:32 -------
Zdenek, sorry, is your patch in? I think Rth approved it!
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg01613.html
Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-25 20:32 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
@ 2004-12-25 22:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-25 22:58 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-25 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-25 22:54 -------
Subject: Bug 19078
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: rakdver@gcc.gnu.org 2004-12-25 22:53:55
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
Log message:
PR rtl-optimization/19078
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (determine_use_iv_cost_generic,
determine_use_iv_cost_outer): Fix computing of cost for the original
bivs.
(dump_use): Handle case related_cands == NULL.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.6955&r2=2.6956
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.38&r2=2.39
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-25 22:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-25 22:58 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-21 14:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-25 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-25 22:58 -------
Not closing the bug yet. There are futher issues; at least
-- we might want to be able to somehow determine whether splitting ivs is
profittable, instead of doing it unconditionally
-- we might want to improve ivopts to take autoincrement addressing modes into
account
-- we might want to make it possible to run autoincrement addressing modes
creation pass before unroller
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|patch |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-25 22:58 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-21 14:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-24 13:20 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (7 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-21 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-21 14:06 -------
Zdenek, is this still a regression, or are your suggestions from
comment #12 only enhancements?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-21 14:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-24 13:20 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2005-02-10 17:45 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2005-01-24 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2005-01-24 13:20 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
> Zdenek, is this still a regression, or are your suggestions from
> comment #12 only enhancements?
I think it still falls into regression cathegory (we produce worse code
than 3.3); the suggestions would help overcome this problems, but they
are either not nice or requiring large changes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-24 13:20 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2005-02-10 17:45 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-10 18:03 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (5 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-10 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10 11:02 -------
In comment #3 Zdenek said "Possibly even better would be to add generation of
autoincrements to loop optimizer, but this would require fixing cse so that it
handles them correctly." Zdenek, can you elaborate on why CSE needs fixing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-10 17:45 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-10 18:03 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2005-02-10 20:53 ` law at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2005-02-10 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2005-02-10 11:12 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
> In comment #3 Zdenek said "Possibly even better would be to add generation of
> autoincrements to loop optimizer, but this would require fixing cse so that it
> handles them correctly." Zdenek, can you elaborate on why CSE needs fixing?
cse does not handle autoincrements. I have no idea what's the problem
there, it is just what I was told when I asked for the possibility to
move the autoinc creation pass last time. Anyone has more precise
information about the nature of the problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-10 18:03 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2005-02-10 20:53 ` law at redhat dot com
2005-02-10 21:13 ` kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
` (3 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2005-02-10 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-02-10 18:01 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality
code after loop unrolling.
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:12 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> > In comment #3 Zdenek said "Possibly even better would be to add generation of
> > autoincrements to loop optimizer, but this would require fixing cse so that it
> > handles them correctly." Zdenek, can you elaborate on why CSE needs fixing?
>
> cse does not handle autoincrements. I have no idea what's the problem
> there, it is just what I was told when I asked for the possibility to
> move the autoinc creation pass last time. Anyone has more precise
> information about the nature of the problem?
It's been about a decade since I looked at cse vs autoincrements, so
the details have faded from memory. [The original context I found the
problem was in an attempt to run cse after reload. ]
Anyway, from a 30 second look at CSE the first thing that jumps out at
me is I don't think we would invalidate objects in the hash table which
are auto-incremented.
Jeff
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-10 20:53 ` law at redhat dot com
@ 2005-02-10 21:13 ` kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
2005-04-21 4:57 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0/4.1 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu @ 2005-02-10 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu 2005-02-10 18:12 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
It's been about a decade since I looked at cse vs autoincrements, so
the details have faded from memory. [The original context I found the
problem was in an attempt to run cse after reload. ]
My recollection is that we never used to allow autoincrements before CSE
with the exception of autoinc on SP.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-10 21:13 ` kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
@ 2005-04-21 4:57 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-08 1:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-27 16:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-04-21 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2005-04-21 4:57 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0/4.1 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-08 1:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-27 16:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-08 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.1 |4.0.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/19078] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling.
2004-12-19 10:58 [Bug c/19078] New: [4.0 Regression] Poor quality code after loop unrolling chris at bubblescope dot net
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-08 1:36 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-27 16:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-27 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.2 |4.0.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19078
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread