public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/59371] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Performance regression in GCC 4.8 and later versions.
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-59371-4-hAXQS9fmoQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-59371-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #8)
> Richard,
>
> I wasn't aware integer promotions applied here, thanks for pointing it
> out. New code is therefore correct while old one was not. Unfortunately
> neither -fwrapv nor -funsafe-loop-optimizations changes anything.
But then it must be target specific thing. Because, -fwrapv certainly changes
it to the same IL as has been emitted before that change (also with -fwrapv, of
course).
So, any reason not to close this PR, because while we generate slower code, the
slower code is actually correct while the old one was wrong?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-17 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-02 17:59 [Bug target/59371] New: " sje at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-03 9:37 ` [Bug target/59371] [4.8/4.9 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-03 16:42 ` sje at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-03 23:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-04 1:49 ` macro@linux-mips.org
2013-12-04 1:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-05 11:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-12-05 23:43 ` macro@linux-mips.org
2013-12-17 10:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-12-19 15:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-09 20:40 ` macro@linux-mips.org
2014-05-22 9:07 ` [Bug target/59371] [4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:34 ` [Bug target/59371] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13 20:18 ` sje at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23 8:28 ` [Bug target/59371] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:02 ` [Bug target/59371] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-14 9:47 ` [Bug target/59371] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Performance regression in GCC 4.8/9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-17 2:57 ` guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-17 3:11 ` guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01 8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 9:35 ` [Bug target/59371] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:30 ` [Bug target/59371] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-59371-4-hAXQS9fmoQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--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).