[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] New: [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] New: [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Testcase:
void f(int *a)
{
  int i;
  for (i = 0;i<100;i++)
    a[i] = 0;
}


-----------cut-------------
we get:
_f:
        li r0,0
        li r2,4
        stw r0,0(r3)
        li r0,99
        mtctr r0
L2:
        li r0,0
        stwx r0,r2,r3
        addi r2,r2,4
        bdnz L2
        blr


the "li r0,0" should be moved out of the loop but is not.


-- 
           Summary: [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: missed-optimization
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: rtl-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-darwin


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 06:48 -------
I get:
Set in insn 47 is invariant (0), cost 4, depends on

Where insn 47 is the load constant:
(insn 47 46 48 3 (set (reg:SI 156)
        (const_int 0 [0x0])) 328 {*movsi_internal1} (nil)
    (nil))

If I change the constant to DEADBEEF, it removes it from the loop.  I should
check if this is true on the 4.2 branch too because I think it is.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |major
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 10:14 -------
I guess the cost of loading zero is cheaper then?


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 16:51 -------
> I guess the cost of loading zero is cheaper then?

Cheaper than loading 0xDEADBEEF but not cheap enough not to pull out of the
loop.  All the "easy" (one instruction) constants are not pulled out.

Really I think rtl loop invariant should pull everything it can pull out of the
loop and then let the RA "fix" up the loop when it runs out of registers.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz]

------- Comment #4 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz  2007-03-26 18:00 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

> > I guess the cost of loading zero is cheaper then?
> 
> Cheaper than loading 0xDEADBEEF but not cheap enough not to pull out of the
> loop.  All the "easy" (one instruction) constants are not pulled out.
> 
> Really I think rtl loop invariant should pull everything it can pull out of the
> loop and then let the RA "fix" up the loop when it runs out of registers.

I would agree, if we had RA capable of that (which I am not quite sure
whether we do or not, although this seems simple enough), or better,
RA doing better job under high register pressure.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 18:09 -------
> I would agree, if we had RA capable of that (which I am not quite sure
> whether we do or not, although this seems simple enough), or better,
> RA doing better job under high register pressure.

Then how do you explain why loop.c pulled this out of the loop but the new rtl
loop invariant does not?  I don't see why we should care about register
pressure except inside the RA.  Every other compiler does it that way, plus
they work better than GCC.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz]

------- Comment #6 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz  2007-03-26 18:18 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

> > I would agree, if we had RA capable of that (which I am not quite sure
> > whether we do or not, although this seems simple enough), or better,
> > RA doing better job under high register pressure.
> 
> Then how do you explain why loop.c pulled this out of the loop but the new rtl
> loop invariant does not?  I don't see why we should care about register
> pressure except inside the RA.  Every other compiler does it that way, plus
> they work better than GCC.

some citation (on both claims)?  Of course, it is straightforward to
remove the register pressure checks from the optimizers, so if you want,
you can experiment with that.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 22:11 -------
Plus I just tested the 4.2 branch and it is broken there also, GRRRRRRRRRRRR. 
Sorry for finding this late in the release cycle but I guess nobody really
looked at the code quality after loop.c was turned off and rtl loop invariant
motion was turned on.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-03-26 22:11:48
               date|                            |
            Summary|[4.3 Regression] rtl loop   |[4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl
                   |invariant is broken         |loop invariant is broken
   Target Milestone|4.3.0                       |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 22:13 -------

Re. comment #5

Andrew, stop spreading nonsense.  Other compilers do take register pressure
into account.  In fact, they do so much better than GCC usually does.  (In GCC
you can't do it well because instructions are selected too late, so you don't
know per-class register pressure).  So your stupid and annoying crusade to
litter every bug with an "let RA fix it" remark shoud stop, thank you very
much.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.0                       |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 22:17 -------
This is still a 4.2 regression.

4.2 produces:
.L2:
        li 0,100
        stwx 0,9,3
        addi 9,9,4
        bdnz .L2
        blr

While 4.1 produces:
.L2:
        stwx 0,9,3
        addi 9,9,4
        bdnz .L2


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.3.0                       |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 22:33 -------
Just a small heuristics problem.  This could be fixed by giving insns to move
with comp_cost - size_cost == 0 in gain_for_invariant a small gain anyway.  Or
maybe comp_cost should overrule size_cost.

Just as a demonstration of how trivial this is, consider this hack:

Index: loop-invariant.c
===================================================================
--- loop-invariant.c    (revision 123222)
+++ loop-invariant.c    (working copy)
@@ -1101,8 +1101,10 @@ find_invariants_to_move (void)
     }

   new_regs = 0;
+
+  /* Find instructions to move.  Nothing gained is nothing lost.  */
   while (best_gain_for_invariant (&inv, &regs_needed,
-                                 new_regs, regs_used, n_inv_uses) > 0)
+                                 new_regs, regs_used, n_inv_uses) >= 0)
     {
       set_move_mark (inv->invno);
       new_regs += regs_needed;


Looks to me like a small heuristics tweak and some benchmarking would get this
one out of the way with only a small effort.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.0                       |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 22:36 -------
And of course the hack doesn't actually work :-)  But it's still just a
heuristics tweak what we need here.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.3.0                       |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-26 22:43 -------
Zdenek, what is the size heuristic for anyway?  For powerpc, the current
heuristic tells the compiler not to move any simple moves:

1) An invariant with a gain of 0 will not be moved.
2) gain = comp_cost - size_cost
3) comp_cost of a simple move is 4
4) all powerpc instructions have a size_cost of 4

(At least, the insns that map to a single machine insns have a size_cost of 4.)

So we tell the compiler never to move simple moves for powerpc :-(


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.0                       |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.3.0                       |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz]

------- Comment #13 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz  2007-03-26 23:05 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

> Zdenek, what is the size heuristic for anyway?  For powerpc, the current
> heuristic tells the compiler not to move any simple moves:
> 
> 1) An invariant with a gain of 0 will not be moved.
> 2) gain = comp_cost - size_cost
> 3) comp_cost of a simple move is 4
> 4) all powerpc instructions have a size_cost of 4
> 
> (At least, the insns that map to a single machine insns have a size_cost of 4.)

size_cost and global_cost_for_size are somewhat missnamed.  The purpose
of global_cost_for_size is to estimate the effect of register pressure,
and it currently works this way:

1) if the number of used registers is significantly smaller than the
   number of available registers, then the cost for each newly used
   register is target_small_cost (which probably turns out to be 4 on
   ppc)
2) if the number of used registers approaches the number of available
   registers, the cost for a newly used register increases more
   significantly (by target_pres_cost and later by target_spill_cost).

The purpose of 1) should have been to prevent optimizations that do not
gain anything and increase register pressure, but apparently this does
not work quite well.  Two possible solutions are decreasing
target_small_cost (maybe setting it fixed to one), or even removing the
penalty for increasing number of used registers in the case 1)
completely.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-15 23:10 -------
I think we can all agree that this is an important bug, even if we're not all
agreed about exactly how to fix it.  This seems likely be to a frequent
problem.

Therefore, despite the fact this is "just" a missed optimization, I'm marking
it P1.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2007-03-26 22:11:48         |2007-04-16 17:53:36
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-17 17:42 -------
Subject: Bug 31360

Author: rakdver
Date: Tue Apr 17 17:42:29 2007
New Revision: 123919

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123919
Log:
        PR rtl-optimization/31360
        * cfgloopanal.c (target_small_cost, target_pres_cost): Removed.
        (target_reg_cost): New.
        (init_set_costs): Initialize target_reg_cost.  Add comments
        regarding the rationale of the costs.
        (global_cost_for_size): Renamed to...
        (estimate_reg_pressure_cost): ... and simplify.  Decrease importance
        of register pressure.
        * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (ivopts_global_cost_for_size): Use
        estimate_reg_pressure_cost.  Add number of ivs.
        (determine_set_costs): Dump target_reg_cost.
        * loop-invariant.c (gain_for_invariant):  Use
        estimate_reg_pressure_cost.  Removed n_inv_uses argument.
        (best_gain_for_invariant, find_invariants_to_move): Remove
        n_inv_uses.
        * cfgloop.h (target_small_cost, target_pres_cost): Removed.
        (target_reg_cost): Declare.
        (global_cost_for_size): Declaration removed.
        (estimate_reg_pressure_cost): Declare.

        * gcc.dg/loop-7.c: New test.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/loop-7.c
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cfgloop.h
    trunk/gcc/cfgloopanal.c
    trunk/gcc/loop-invariant.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-17 22:13 -------
Fixeth on ze trunk.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.2/4.3 Regression] rtl    |[4.2 Regression] rtl loop
                   |loop invariant is broken    |invariant is broken


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #17 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-24 22:42 -------
Zdenek, do you think this is appropriate for a backport to 4.2.0?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-24 22:44 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> Zdenek, do you think this is appropriate for a backport to 4.2.0?
Well right now it causes a regression so I don't think it is appropriate until
that regression is fixed :). See PR 31676 for the regression.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-06 00:27 -------
This patch is responsible for the code size regressions on CSiBE at -Os.  It
also causes a bootstrap failure on arm-netbsdelf2: genautomata is being
miscompiled.


-- 

rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-06 11:10 -------
Re. comment #19: What "code size regression"?  Your comment is too unspecific.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #21 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-06 15:34 -------
(In reply to comment #20)
> Re. comment #19: What "code size regression"?  Your comment is too unspecific.
> 

The code size regression that shows up on CSiBE between r123918 and r123919 on
ARM, mips and PPC (at least).  Just build CSiBE at -Os with and without this
patch.  On ARM this is approx 0.3%, which is a significant move (given that a
good improvement is normally about 0.01%).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #22 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-06 18:10 -------
Again, please be specific: Please identify the benchmark, the file, maybe even
the function, and extra bonus for figuring out what causes the size to
increase.

I don't understand why you expect anyone to go figure out what is wrong, when
you've obviously already built CSiBE and can do this yourself in a matter of
minutes.


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-06 18:14 -------
Also file a new bug for the code size problem and the wrong code issue and link
them to this bug.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] rtl loop invariant is broken

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #24 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-14 22:25 -------
Will not be fixed in 4.2.0; retargeting at 4.2.1.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.0                       |4.2.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #25 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-23 10:16 -------
Any hope of having this fixed on the 4.2 branch too or should it be closed?


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
            Summary|[4.2 Regression] rtl loop   |[4.2 Regression] RTL loop
                   |invariant is broken         |invariant is not aggressive
                   |                            |enough


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-23 10:23 -------
I guess its hard to find a fix that does not regress elsewhere, so I'm inclined
to WONTFIX this on the 4.2 branch.  As it's still P1 this needs RM approval
though.
Mark?


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu
                   |                            |dot org
      Known to work|                            |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #27 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-23 20:45 -------
Richard G., by:

"I guess its hard to find a fix that does not regress elsewhere, so I'm
inclined
to WONTFIX this on the 4.2 branch."

are you referring to functional problems or to Richard E's comments regarding
code size?  The followup PR 31676 patch looks very small; couldn't we backport
this patch plus that one to 4.2, if we wanted to do so?

As for the code size regression, Richard E., have you had a chance to identify
a specific CSiBE file that expands, so that Zdenek can look at that?

Meanwhile, I would prefer to leave this regression open.  I really do feel that
it's a severe optimization regression.  After all, this is basically a variant
on bzero.

Thanks,

-- Mark


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #28 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-25 08:06 -------
(In reply to comment #27)

> As for the code size regression, Richard E., have you had a chance to identify
> a specific CSiBE file that expands, so that Zdenek can look at that?
> 

There were a number of files that regressed.  PR 31849 is one example.

Note, if this patch is applied to the branch, then the fix for 31848 will
probably also be required.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #29 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-25 11:38 -------
Richard --

Thank you for refreshing my memory as to the code-size issue and putting the PR
numbers in the audit trail here.

-- Mark


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.1                       |4.2.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #30 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-09 19:20 -------
Change target milestone to 4.2.3, as 4.2.2 has been released.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.2                       |4.2.3


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #31 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-02 08:17 -------
Any objection to closing this as WONTFIX now?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #32 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-02 08:22 -------
(In reply to comment #31)
> Any objection to closing this as WONTFIX now?

Fine with me since we (sony) is not going to use 4.2.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #33 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-03 07:24 -------
By silent consensus.


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #34 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-03 07:27 -------
Reopening...


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #35 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-03 07:28 -------
Fixed in the upcoming 4.3 series.


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.2.3                       |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[alexandre dot nunes at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #36 from alexandre dot nunes at gmail dot com  2008-02-12 13:13 -------
I think it's worth to note here the implications of the fix to PR31849.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360

[Bug rtl-optimization/31360] [4.2 Regression] RTL loop invariant is not aggressive enough

[alexandre dot nunes at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #37 from alexandre dot nunes at gmail dot com  2008-03-03 14:30 -------
If PR31849 is right, shouldn't this be reopened or marked as something other
than fixed ?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31360