On 2021/12/20 15:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:32 AM Xionghu Luo <luo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/12/7 20:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> + class loop *coldest_loop = coldest_outermost_loop[loop->num];
>>>>> + if (loop_depth (coldest_loop) < loop_depth (outermost_loop))
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + class loop *hotter_loop = hotter_than_inner_loop[loop->num];
>>>>> + if (!hotter_loop
>>>>> + || loop_depth (hotter_loop) < loop_depth (outermost_loop))
>>>>> + return outermost_loop;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* hotter_loop is between OUTERMOST_LOOP and LOOP like:
>>>>> + [loop tree root, ..., coldest_loop, ..., outermost_loop, ...,
>>>>> + hotter_loop, second_coldest_loop, ..., loop]
>>>>> + return second_coldest_loop to be the hoist target. */
>>>>> + class loop *aloop;
>>>>> + for (aloop = hotter_loop->inner; aloop; aloop = aloop->next)
>>>>> + if (flow_loop_nested_p (aloop, loop))
>>>> should be:
>>>>
>>>> if (aloop == loop || flow_loop_nested_p (aloop, loop))
>>> OK with that fixed.
>>>
>>> Are necessary prerequesites committed to avoid regressions?
>>> I guess we need to keep a watchful eye and eventually revert
>>> (or gate with a --param disabled by default) the new behavior if
>>> severe regressions are discovered.
>>>
>>> Thanks and sorry for the repeated delays.
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your review, I learned quite a lot and gained very useful
>> comments & help through the period :) There are still 3 patches required
>> to avoid regression or so, I've reorganized them and sent it out.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586371.html
>>
>>
>> In addition, cooked the patch to add option for disable/enable it.
>> Is it OK to merge it to current patch?
>
> Hmm, let's go without this flag for now, we can add something like this
> when we see a testcase where that makes sense (and where profile info
> is not wrecked by other bugs).
>
> Adding a --param would be a no brainer, but for new user-facing options
> we should be more careful.
>
Thanks. Committed to r12-6087.
--
Thanks,
Xionghu
