Hi,
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Btw, is there a bug-report about the issue you are facing? Please
> let's take this issue there.
There's now (32698), I kinda hoped it would be easier to fix. :)
bye, Roman
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > For me both canonicalizations generate
> >
> > movl8(%ecx,%edx,4), %eax
> > addl4(%ecx,%edx,4), %eax
>
> Hmm, there seem to be other problems in this area as well.
> Eith
On 7/5/07, Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> For me both canonicalizations generate
>
> movl8(%ecx,%edx,4), %eax
> addl4(%ecx,%edx,4), %eax
Hmm, there seem to be other problems in this area as well.
Either add a "p
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> For me both canonicalizations generate
>
> movl8(%ecx,%edx,4), %eax
> addl4(%ecx,%edx,4), %eax
Hmm, there seem to be other problems in this area as well.
Either add a "p[i + 3]" to it to fool combine or try this:
int g(v
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > > How should this be optimized within the context of your canonicalization?
> >
> > For example by making fold_plusminus_mult_expr do what its comment
> > suggest, "No identical multiplicands; se
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > How should this be optimized within the context of your canonicalization?
>
> For example by making fold_plusminus_mult_expr do what its comment
> suggest, "No identical multiplicands; see if we can find a common
> power-of-two factor ..."
>
>
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Well, that's always the nature of any canonicalization.
>
> Well, I can't say that I agree with your canonicalization, but...
>
> > of course only tested on this particular testcase. It just sh
On 7/5/07, Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, I wrote:
> Exactly and that's why I think this transformation is done far too early.
> It doesn't make sense that these two examples produce different code:
>
> int foo1(int x)
> {
> return (x * 4) + 4;
> }
> int f
On 7/5/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > If there is anything to fix, then all those variants should produce
> > the same code, not just foo3 and foo4. So for these cases we should
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Well, that's always the nature of any canonicalization.
Well, I can't say that I agree with your canonicalization, but...
> of course only tested on this particular testcase. It just shows
> that it is possible to fix this in a generic way.
le
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > If there is anything to fix, then all those variants should produce
> > the same code, not just foo3 and foo4. So for these cases we should
> > make sure that value-numbering sees them as computi
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> If there is anything to fix, then all those variants should produce
> the same code, not just foo3 and foo4. So for these cases we should
> make sure that value-numbering sees them as computing the same value
> and extend combine to choose the in
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, I wrote:
>
> > Exactly and that's why I think this transformation is done far too early.
> > It doesn't make sense that these two examples produce different code:
> >
> > int foo1(int x)
> > {
> > return (x * 4) + 4;
> >
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, I wrote:
> Exactly and that's why I think this transformation is done far too early.
> It doesn't make sense that these two examples produce different code:
>
> int foo1(int x)
> {
> return (x * 4) + 4;
> }
> int foo2(int x)
> {
> int y = x * 4;
> retur
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > What makes "(i + 1) * 4" the canonical form of "(i * 4) + 4" compared to
> > other expressions like "(i * 4) + 8"?
>
> It's an arbitrary decision by fold. For (i + 2) * 4 the canonical form
> is (i * 4) + 8. For (i * j) + j the canonical for
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > > > The code to fold_binary was added by:
> > > > r107218 | rguenth | 2005-11-19 03:29:10 -0800 (Sat, 19 Nov 2005) | 9
> > > > lines
> > > >
> > > > 2005-11-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECT
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > The code to fold_binary was added by:
> > > r107218 | rguenth | 2005-11-19 03:29:10 -0800 (Sat, 19 Nov 2005) | 9 lines
> > >
> > > 2005-11-19 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >PR middle-end/23294
> > >* fold-c
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure that's related, what's happening in my example is that the
> > > call to fold_plusminus_mult_expr() defeats the optimization attempted in
> > > pointer_int_sum(). If I use the patch b
Hi,
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > I'm not sure that's related, what's happening in my example is that the
> > call to fold_plusminus_mult_expr() defeats the optimization attempted in
> > pointer_int_sum(). If I use the patch below to restrict the condition, my
> > problem is fixed
On 6/29/07, Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/28/2007 07:54:43 PM:
>
> > Hi,
> > Notice that it generates the (i + 1) * 4 instead of (i * 4) + 4 as with
> > the other cases. While I tried to d
Hi,
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/28/2007 07:54:43 PM:
>
> > Hi,
> > Notice that it generates the (i + 1) * 4 instead of (i * 4) + 4 as with
> > the other cases. While I tried to debug this I narrowed it down to the
> > changes in
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/28/2007 07:54:43 PM:
> Hi,
> Notice that it generates the (i + 1) * 4 instead of (i * 4) + 4 as with
> the other cases. While I tried to debug this I narrowed it down to the
> changes in fold_binary(), but I don't really know how to fix this, so
> I
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This patch merges in the pointer_plus branch. Hopefully I did not mess
> anything up.
I found a small regression caused by this, e.g.:
int g(void);
void f(int *p, int i)
{
p[i] = g();
p[i + 2] = g();
p[i + 1] = g()
23 matches
Mail list logo
