Andrea Corallo via Gcc writes:
>> FWIW I've no idea if any libgccjit users are using semantic
>> interposition; I suspect the answer is "no one is using it".
>>
>> Antoyo, Andrea [also CCed]: are either of you using semantic
>> interposition of symbols within libgccjit?
>
> Hi David,
>
> AFAIU i
After some very painful analysis, I was able to reduce the degradation
we are experiencing in VRP to a handful of lines in the new
implementation of prange.
What happens is that any series of small changes to a new prange class
causes changes in the inlining of wide_int_storage elsewhere. With
th
> FWIW I've no idea if any libgccjit users are using semantic
> interposition; I suspect the answer is "no one is using it".
>
> Antoyo, Andrea [also CCed]: are either of you using semantic
> interposition of symbols within libgccjit?
Hi David,
AFAIU in Emacs we are not relying on interposition
On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 21:15 +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> > Am 30.04.2024 um 21:11 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc
> > :
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74%
> > > slowdow
On 4/30/24 12:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:09:51PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote:
In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
in VRP, even without any code path actually using
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:09:51PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
> > in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
> > track
> Am 30.04.2024 um 21:11 schrieb Jason Merrill via Gcc :
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc
> wrote:
>>
>> In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
>> in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
>> tracked this do
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:44 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote:
>
> In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
> in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
> tracked this down to irange::get_bitmask() being compiled differently
> with and without
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 26 2024, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
> in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
> tracked this down to irange::get_bitmask() being compiled differently
> with and wit
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:58 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:45 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
> > in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
> >
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:45 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
> in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
> tracked this down to irange::get_bitmask() being compiled differently
> wi
Hi folks!
In implementing prange (pointer ranges), I have found a 1.74% slowdown
in VRP, even without any code path actually using the code. I have
tracked this down to irange::get_bitmask() being compiled differently
with and without the bare bones patch. With the patch,
irange::get_bitmask() h
12 matches
Mail list logo
