On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a followup patch better handling below case:
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> {
>> a[i] = 1;
>> a[i+2] = 2;
>> }
>> Instead of generating root variables by loading from memory and propagating
>> with PHI
>> nodes, like:
>> t0 = a[0];
>> t1 = a[1];
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> {
>> a[i] = 1;
>> t2 = 2;
>> t0 = t1;
>> t1 = t2;
>> }
>> a[n] = t0;
>> a[n+1] = t1;
>> We can simply store loop invariant values after loop body if we know loop
>> iterates more
>> than chain->length times, like:
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> {
>> a[i] = 1;
>> }
>> a[n] = 2;
>> a[n+1] = 2;
>>
>> Bootstrap(O2/O3) in patch series on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
> Update patch wrto changes in previous patch.
> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
+ if (TREE_CODE (val) == INTEGER_CST || TREE_CODE (val) == REAL_CST)
+ continue;
Please use CONSTANT_CLASS_P (val) instead. I suppose VECTOR_CST or
FIXED_CST would be ok as well for example.
Ok with that change. Did we eventually optimize this in followup
passes previously?
Richard.
> Thanks,
> bin
>>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>> 2017-06-21 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>>
>> * tree-predcom.c: (struct chain): Handle store-store chain in which
>> stores for elimination only store loop invariant values.
>> (execute_pred_commoning_chain): Ditto.
>> (prepare_initializers_chain_store_elim): Ditto.
>> (prepare_finalizers): Ditto.
>> (is_inv_store_elimination_chain): New function.
>> (initialize_root_vars_store_elim_1): New function.
