On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathames
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
>>> constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
>>
>> Inde
On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
>>> constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
>>
>> Indee
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
>> constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
>
> Indeed - I have committed the fix.
>
My earlier mail got rejected (maybe be
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> In c_expr::c_expr, shouldn't OP_C_EXPR be passed to operand
> constructor instead of OP_EXPR ?
Indeed - I have committed the fix.
Thanks,
Richard.
> This caused segfault for patterns when "simplification" operand was
> only c_expr (p
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh K
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
The patterns mentioned in the links were:
a) (X >> CST1) >= CST2 -> X >= CST2 << CST1
however, an expression Y >= CST gets folded to Y > CST - 1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the late reply
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> I had a look at PR 14753
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14753) from the first
>> link. I have tried to implement those transforms (attached patch,
>> stage-1 compiled).
>> I
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
I had a look at PR 14753
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14753) from the first
link. I have tried to implement those transforms (attached patch,
stage-1 compiled).
I have written the transforms to operate on GENERIC.
Why not directly
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the late reply
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>> Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
>>> regarding the following p
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
>> regarding the following points:
>>
>> a) Pattern matching: Currently, gimple_match_and_sim
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Sorry for the late reply. I would like to have few clarifications
> regarding the following points:
>
> a) Pattern matching: Currently, gimple_match_and_simplify() matches
> patterns one-by-one. Could we use a decision tre
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kul
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
Hi, I am an undergraduate student at Universit
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
>> like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
>
> I've seen the entry on our
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
> like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
I've seen the entry on our GSoC project page and edited it to discourage
people from workin
Hi, I am an undergraduate student at University of Pune, India, and would
like to work on moving folding patterns from fold-const.c to gimple.
If I understand correctly, constant folding is done on GENERIC (by
routines in fold-const.c), and then GENERIC is lowered to GIMPLE. The
purpose of this pr
21 matches
Mail list logo