public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "amker at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5.0 regression] 64bit Arch can't ivopt while 32bit Arch can
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:19:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-62173-4-5uJvM9WzTP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-62173-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173

--- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> It's probably not correct to simply transfer range info from *idx to
> iv->base.
> Instead SCEV analysis needs to track the range of CHREC_LEFT when it analyzes
> the SSA use-def chain.  That's of course a much bigger change :/
> 
> The patch may still help in some cases - I suppose the original testcase is
> reduced from sth else?

I see it's a tricky problem, and I have to admit that I don't understand it
very well yet.  The question is, is relax of POINTER_PLUS_EXPR constraint the
right way fixing this?  I do remember some other PRs (other than this one or
bug 52563) are caused by this constraint according to your comments.

Of course, take range information into consideration is always an improvement. 
Actually I have another possible example in iv elimination.  Curently GCC
simply rejects elimination of an iv use with a candidate if the cand is of
smaller type, but as long as we can prove value of iv use can be represented by
the smaller candidate, elimination is actually safe.  But seems to me, fixing
this issue with value information is like a side-effect?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-01-26 14:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-18 16:12 [Bug target/62173] New: [AArch64] Performance regression due to r213488 spop at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-18 16:39 ` [Bug target/62173] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-18 19:13 ` spop at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-08-19  1:37 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-28 11:28 ` [Bug target/62173] [5.0 regression] " jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-14  9:37 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-17  2:14 ` amker.cheng at gmail dot com
2014-11-24 12:15 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-24 12:38 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-24 13:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-24 23:01 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-26 10:54 ` [Bug target/62173] [5.0 regression] [AArch64] Can't ivopt array base address while ARM can jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-27  9:35 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-27 12:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5.0 regression] 64bit Arch can't ivopt while 32bit Arch can rguenther at suse dot de
2014-11-27 12:16 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2014-11-27 13:34 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-23 17:33 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-26 10:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-26 11:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-26 13:48 ` ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-26 14:19 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-01-26 14:51 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-01-26 14:53 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-01-26 15:03 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-26 15:38 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-27  3:21 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-27  7:56 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-27  9:11 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2015-01-28 18:26 ` LpSolit at netscape dot net
2015-01-29  6:48 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-30  6:42 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-30 12:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-05  7:27 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-11 17:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5 Regression] " jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-11 17:46 ` jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-11 17:52 ` [Bug tree-optimization/62173] [5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-13  8:34 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-02  3:34 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-03  3:56 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-22 11:44 ` jiwang 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-62173-4-5uJvM9WzTP@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).