On 9/10/21 6:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/10/2021 10:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/10/21 5:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/9/2021 3:21 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
/* If this path does not thread through the loop latch, then we are
using the FSM threader to find old style jump
On 9/10/2021 10:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/10/21 5:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/9/2021 3:21 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
/* If this path does not thread through the loop latch, then we are
using the FSM threader to find old style jump threads. This
is good, except th
On 9/10/21 5:51 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/9/2021 4:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
b) Even though we can seemingly fold everything DOM/threader does, in
order to replace it with a backward threader instance we'd have to merge
the cost/profitability code scattered throughout the forward thread
On 9/10/21 5:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 9/9/2021 3:21 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
/* If this path does not thread through the loop latch, then we are
using the FSM threader to find old style jump threads. This
is good, except the FSM threader does not re-use an existing
On 9/9/2021 4:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
b) Even though we can seemingly fold everything DOM/threader does, in
order to replace it with a backward threader instance we'd have to merge
the cost/profitability code scattered throughout the forward threader,
as well as the EDGE_FSM* / EDGE_COP
On 9/9/2021 3:21 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
/* If this path does not thread through the loop latch, then we are
using the FSM threader to find old style jump threads. This
is good, except the FSM threader does not re-use an existing
threading path to reduce code duplicat
I think things are clear enough to propose a patch. Thanks for
everyone's input.
I have added some comments and tweaked Michael's patch to include the
final BB where we're threading to, in the check. Without this last
check, we fail in tree-ssa/cunroll-15.c because the latch becomes
pollute
On 9/9/2021 2:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:36 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/9/21 9:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:37 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/9/21 8:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michael Matz wrote:
On 9/9/2021 2:14 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/8/21 8:13 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
[lame answer to self]
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
The forward threader guards against this by simply disallowing
threadings that involve different loops. As I see
The thread in questi
On 9/9/21 4:44 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Here there's no simple latch block to start with (the backedge comes
directly out of the loop exit block). So my suggested improvement
(testing if the latch was empty and only then reject the thread), w
Hello,
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > Here there's no simple latch block to start with (the backedge comes
> > directly out of the loop exit block). So my suggested improvement
> > (testing if the latch was empty and only then reject the thread), would
> > solve this.
>
> Well, t
On 9/9/21 2:52 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
The ldist-22 regression is interesting though:
void foo ()
{
int i;
:
goto ; [INV]
:
a[i_1] = 0;
if (i_1 > 100)
goto ; [INV]
else
goto ; [INV]
:
b[i_1] = i_1;
Hello,
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> The ldist-22 regression is interesting though:
>
> void foo ()
> {
> int i;
>
>:
> goto ; [INV]
>
>:
> a[i_1] = 0;
> if (i_1 > 100)
> goto ; [INV]
> else
> goto ; [INV]
>
>:
> b[i_1] = i_1;
>
>:
> i_8 =
Hello,
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I believe something like below would be appropriate, it disables
> > threading if the path contains a latch at the non-last position (due
> > to being backwards on the non-first position in the array). I.e. it
> > disables rotating the loop
On 9/9/21 12:15 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:21 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/9/21 10:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
I ran some experiments a while back, and my current work on the enhanced
solver/threader, can fold virtually everything the DOM/threader gets
(even wit
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:21 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/9/21 10:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:36 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/9/21 9:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:37 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
On 9/9/21 10:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:36 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/9/21 9:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:37 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/9/21 8:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michael Matz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:36 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/9/21 9:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:37 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/9/21 8:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hell
On 9/9/21 9:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:37 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/9/21 8:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
[lame answer to self]
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
The forward threader guard
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:14 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/8/21 8:13 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > [lame answer to self]
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
> >
> The forward threader guards against this by simply disallowing
> threadings that involve dif
On 9/8/21 8:13 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
[lame answer to self]
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
The forward threader guards against this by simply disallowing
threadings that involve different loops. As I see
The thread in question (5->9->3) is all within the same outer loop
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:37 AM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/9/21 8:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michael Matz wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> [lame answer to self]
> >>
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
> >>
> > The forward threader guards
On 9/9/21 8:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
[lame answer to self]
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
The forward threader guards against this by simply disallowing
threadings that involve different loops. As I see
The thread
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> [lame answer to self]
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> > > > The forward threader guards against this by simply disallowing
> > > > threadings that involve different loops. As I see
> > >
> > > The thread in question
Hello,
[lame answer to self]
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > The forward threader guards against this by simply disallowing
> > > threadings that involve different loops. As I see
> >
> > The thread in question (5->9->3) is all within the same outer loop,
> > though. BTW, the b
Hello,
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > The forward threader guards against this by simply disallowing
> > threadings that involve different loops. As I see
>
> The thread in question (5->9->3) is all within the same outer loop,
> though. BTW, the backward threader also disallows
On 9/8/21 3:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:25 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
It would be helpful to have the patch causing the issue to look at the IL.
But as Micha said, there needs to be a perfect loop nest for interchange
to work.
Richard.
Absolutely! I'm attaching th
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:25 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> > It would be helpful to have the patch causing the issue to look at the IL.
> > But as Micha said, there needs to be a perfect loop nest for interchange
> > to work.
> >
> > Richard.
>
> Absolutely! I'm attaching the reduced testcase, as w
It would be helpful to have the patch causing the issue to look at the IL.
But as Micha said, there needs to be a perfect loop nest for interchange
to work.
Richard.
Absolutely! I'm attaching the reduced testcase, as well as the patch.
The problematic thread shows up in the thread2 dump:
Che
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 12:44 PM Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> First of all. Thanks so much for this incredibly useful explanation.
> It helps a lot.
>
> I'm still trying to wrap my head around this, so please bear with me.
>
> On 9/7/21 4:45 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Sep 20
First of all. Thanks so much for this incredibly useful explanation.
It helps a lot.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this, so please bear with me.
On 9/7/21 4:45 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote:
The regression comes from the simple_re
Hello,
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc wrote:
> The regression comes from the simple_reduc_1() function in
> tree-ssa/loop-interchange-9.c, and it involves the following path:
>
> === BB 5
> Imports: n_10(D) j_19
> Exports: n_10(D) j_13 j_19
> j_13 : j
Hi folks.
I have a pending patch for the path solver that pulls in global ranges
when available (the stuff in SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO). In doing so, I have
run into a regression I was hoping the loop experts could pontificate on.
The regression comes from the simple_reduc_1() function in
tree-s
33 matches
Mail list logo
