sable this piece of code, the code is compiled without problem.
Did I misunderstand something here, or is it an possible bug? The code base is
GCC 4.4 branch.
Thanks in advance for help.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com]
> Sent: 01 May 2009 15:32
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; bernd.schm...@analog.com; weig...@de.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: Reload problem: asm operand requires impossible reload
>
>
ern has no
"m" alternative, and thus causes the "asm operand requires impossible reload".
I should merge these two patterns into one.
Looking at the descrption of "movm" in internal manual, I found this subtle
requirement is not documented. Maybe we should add some
arg 1
tst.c:7:5>
tst.c:7:5>
tst.c:7:5>
Is the RTL expansion wrong or the orginal tree node is constructed incorrectly?
Thanks,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
essage-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 June 2009 11:54
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Restrict keyword doesn't work correctly in GCC 4.4
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Bingfeng Mei
> wrote
inal Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 June 2009 15:10
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Restrict keyword doesn't work correctly in GCC 4.4
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei
> w
Is it possible to restore the original name if the copy propagation is not
profitable and doesn't go ahead?
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 16 June 2009 13:56
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Su
0.02 0.001 0.00 0.00 snocString
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 16 June 2009 14:02
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Questionable function renaming
>
> On
1(e.g., insn 53 -> insn 36 in the DDG)
We can reach similar conclusion.
I wonder what other scenario would require to generate reg moves. Am I missing
some obvious points? Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
DDG from sms-6.c
SMS loop num: 1, file: sms-6.c, line: 9
Nod
Thanks. I didn't notice the option. Which approach is generally better
according to your experience? Producing regmoves or more depedencies?
> -Original Message-
> From: Revital1 Eres [mailto:e...@il.ibm.com]
> Sent: 23 June 2009 14:40
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Ayal Z
or it is current limitation of GCC.
Thanks,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom Uk
Hello,
I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
object files are achived into static library files and the final
binary is linked against them, although these object files are compiled
with -flto and I can see all the lto related sections in .a files.
Is this what is descri
Thanks, I will check what I can do with collect2. LTO
seems to save 6-9% code size for applications I tested
and should be very useful for us.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 April 2010 10:33
> To: Bingf
I just tried -fwhole-program. It can achieve extra 3%-4% saving.
That is brilliant. Thanks.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Hubicka [mailto:hubi...@ucw.cz]
> Sent: 28 April 2010 13:59
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> > Not yet, I mi
010 14:59
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: LTO question
>
> On 28/04/2010 10:44, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > Thanks, I will check what I can do with collect2.
>
> I was also planning to work on this, but won't have any
>
I turned on -ffunction-sections and compiled with -Os.
The size gain at -O2 is less though.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Xinliang David Li [mailto:davi...@google.com]
> Sent: 29 April 2010 17:17
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Richard Guenther; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>
Our architecture has the similar resource, and we use the first approach
by creating an imaginary register and dependency between these instructions,
i.e., every such instruction reads and write to the special register to
create artificial dependency. You may need to add a (unspec:..) as an
indepe
How do you define your imaginary register in target.h? Can you post
one example of your instruction pattern?
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Hariharan Sandanagobalane [mailto:harihar...@picochip.com]
> Sent: 12 May 2010 16:40
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.or
BXM))
(unspec:BXBC [(reg:BXBC R_BX)] UNSPEC_BX)] < Important to avoid some
optimization.
Our port is still porivate and not in mainline.
Cheers,
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Hariharan Sandanagobalane [mailto:harihar...@picochip.com]
> Sent: 13 May 201
iharan Sandanagobalane [mailto:harihar...@picochip.com]
> Sent: 14 May 2010 12:26
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Machine description question
>
> Hi Bengfeng,
> Changing my instruction patterns similar to the ones that you
> sent does
> get over t
appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
It seems that the cloned function lacks node_info as indicated
by ip-reference.c:1245. I am not familiar with these stuff. Any
suggestion on where I should look at? Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Yes, that is the reason. One of our generated source file
is compiled with -O0 with no particular reason and no one
noticed. Thanks.
Cheers,
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 May 2010 16:12
> To: Bingfeng M
Hi, Richard,
With resolution file generated by GOLD (or I am going to hack gnu LD), is
externally_visible attribute still needed to annotate those symbols accessed
from non-LTO objects when compiling with -fwhole-program.
In theory, it shouldn't be needed since LTO has all information. But what
Converting to C++ is a major change. Does that justify to have a major release
(5.0.0)?
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Guenther
> Sent: 02 June 2010 10:36
> To: Gabriel Dos Reis
> Cc: DJ Delorie; Hargett,
Hi,
For the following simple example,
int main(void)
{
int a=0;
switch (a)
{
case 0:
int b=2;
break;
}
}
GCC will complain:
tst.c: In function 'main':
tst.c:7:6: error: a label can only be part of a statement and a declaration is
not a statement
G++ will compil
way.
Thanks,
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Hubicka [mailto:hubi...@ucw.cz]
> Sent: 27 May 2010 09:04
> To: Richard Guenther
> Cc: Bingfeng Mei; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: externally_visible and resoultion file
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:53 P
Thanks. But why "v" is linked correctly here? Shouldn't it
be treated as static with -fwhole-program?
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 08 June 2010 14:10
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Jan
mail.com]
> Sent: 08 June 2010 15:18
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Jan Hubicka; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Cary Coutant
> Subject: Re: externally_visible and resoultion file
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > Thanks. But why "v" is linked correctl
> -Original Message-
> From: Cary Coutant [mailto:ccout...@google.com]
> Sent: 09 June 2010 18:43
> To: Richard Guenther
> Cc: Bingfeng Mei; Jan Hubicka; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: externally_visible and resoultion file
>
> >> Yes, this is also wha
Hi,
I am still puzzled by the effect of LTO/-fwhole-program.
For the following simple tests:
a.c:
#include
int v;
extern void bar();
int main()
{
v = 5;
bar();
printf("v = %d\n", v);
return 0;
}
b.c:
int v;
void bar()
{
v = 4;
}
If I just compile plainly, the output is:
v = 4
I
rn.cyg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 June 2010 14:21
> To: Richard Guenther
> Cc: Manuel López-Ibáñez; Bingfeng Mei; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
> Subject: Re: Issue with LTO/-fwhole-program
>
> On 11/06/2010 13:59, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Well, we can't. We specific
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 June 2010 14:08
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Dave Korn; Manuel López-Ibáñez; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
> Subject: Re: Issue with LTO/-fwhole-program
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2
> -Original Message-
> From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [mailto:lopeziba...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 June 2010 14:14
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Dave Korn; Richard Guenther; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
> Subject: Re: Issue with LTO/-fwhole-program
>
> On 11 June 2010 15
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Ian Lance Taylor
> Sent: 14 June 2010 05:43
> To: David Brown
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Issue with LTO/-fwhole-program
>
> David Brown writes:
>
> > After doing a bit more readin
Hi,
I just updated from last week's version to 160732. It seems broken due to the
latest changes in c-family directory.
./../trunk/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c: In function 'void
builtin_define_with_hex_fp_value(const char*, tree_node*, int, const char*,
const char*, const char*)':
../../trunk/gc
Hi,
I did some experiments to convert cross-reference table
to resolution files. Patches are attached and still crude.
The initial idea is to have as little as possible change
in GNU LD. It turns out that cross reference table doesn't
always print out definition at the first line. So
some chan
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 01 July 2010 16:13
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
> Subject: Re: Convert cross reference table to resolution file for LTO
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Matz [mailto:m...@suse.de]
> Sent: 01 July 2010 16:27
> To: Richard Guenther
> Cc: Bingfeng Mei; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
> Subject: Re: Convert cross reference table to resolution file for LTO
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu
Hello,
I started to look at VTA recently and check whether our port passes
the -fcompare-debug test. Our port contains some extra passes for
our VLIW target.
What I have trouble is with our modulo scheduling pass (based on
IMS algorithm). I noticed that debug_insns are built into DDG,
and has
Hello,
I am interested to attend GCC summit this year, but it doesn't seem
to happen, does it?
Cheers,
Bingfeng
Hi,
I ran a small test to see how the trunk/4.5 works
with the rewritten restrict qualified pointer code. But it doesn't
seem to work on both x86-64 and our port.
tst.c:
void foo (int * restrict a, int * restrict b,
int * restrict c, int * restrict d)
{
*c = *a + 1;
*d = *b + 1;
}
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Monakov [mailto:amona...@ispras.ru]
> Sent: 02 August 2010 17:48
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Guenther
> Subject: Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Bingfeng Mei
Thanks,
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 August 2010 10:33
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Alexander Monakov; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?
>
> On Tue, Aug 3
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 August 2010 17:22
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: Alexander Monakov; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?
>
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:11
Hi,
alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias
oracle. For example, in ddg.c cross-iteration memory dependence
is drawn by calling insn_alias_sets
Bosscher [mailto:stevenb@gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 August 2010 16:26
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Guenther
> Subject: Re: Shouldn't alias_sets_conflict_p be replaced with
> rtx_refs_may_alias_p?
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
&g
Hello,
I came across an issue regarding named section and nobits. In
the following example, I expected the c is placed is placed
in a section named .smemdata and nobits is set for the section
since "c" is initialized to zeros.
int a = 0;
int b = 2000 * 512;
static int c[(200 * 512)] __attribute
e any function with
specific optimization flags or have an extra option to choose that. What do
you think?
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
[mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 08 September 2010 11:26
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Function-specific optimization flags and inlining
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I found that currently if a fu
> Sent: 08 September 2010 11:26
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Function-specific optimization flags and inlining
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I found that currently if a function with specific opti
(reg/v:V2SI 86 [ c ])
(reg:V2SI 90))) 511 {fp_predv2si} (nil))
(insn 12 11 16 2 tst.c:16 (set (reg:V2SI 87 [ ])
(reg/v:V2SI 85 [ c ])) 190 {fp_movv2si} (nil))
(insn 16 12 19 2 tst.c:18 (set (reg/i:V2SI 8 r8)
(reg/v:V2SI 85 [ c ])) 190 {fp_movv2si} (nil))
Cheers,
Bin
The old insns_may_alias_p is based checking alias set number. But since
4.5, the new alias oracle doesn't rely the alias set number. may_alias_p()
is a new function based on alias oracle. Essentially, it is same as
true_dependence function but excluding offset and TBAA based disambiguation,
which
It doesn't fail on my target, which is based on 4.5 and
has backported this patch. I will have a look at PowerPC.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Revital1 Eres [mailto:e...@il.ibm.com]
> Sent: 15 September 2010 13:51
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Subject: RE: Question
like this. Maybe we should exclude
such case in the first place? I read the relevant text in
"Advanced Compiler Design Implementation", the example used is linear
CFG and it doesn't mention how to handle loop case.
Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Bingfeng Mei
e-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 September 2010 13:33
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Worse code generated by PRE
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I hav
h internal manual and gcc manual. It seems not to be documented. I wonder
whether there is a good reason for this? If yes, at least we should document it.
BTW, the code certainly works in 4.4.
Regards,
Bingfeng Mei
: Re: Why is -fstrict-aliasing excluded from function "optimize"
> attribute?
>
> On 11/03/2010 08:44 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2010 04:49 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> &
tation fault.
(gdb) p vector->u.fld[0].rt_rtvec
$15 = (rtvec) 0x2a95905028
(gdb) p *(vector->u.fld[0].rt_rtvec)
$16 = {num_elem = -1515870811, elem = {0xa5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5}}
I really have no clue on how to debug such issue.
Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Bingfeng Mei
I am not aware of that. Thank you very much.
Cheers,
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Schwab [mailto:sch...@redhat.com]
> Sent: 12 November 2010 11:24
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: How to debug when some rtx are wrongly recl
Hello,
I have been struggling with GCC's restrict implementation. One question is:
should "restrictness" be preserved over function inlining? For example, in
the following code:
static int store_int (int *a, int data)
{
*a = data;
}
void foo (int * __restrict a, int *__restrict b)
{
int da
Hi,
I am working on how to improve "restrict". I noticed
that my changes lead to failure of pr38212. After looking
at its code, I think the test may not be valid according
to c99 standard.
C99 standard 6.7.3.1:
EXAMPLE 4 The rule limiting assignments between restricted pointers does not
distin
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 November 2010 13:53
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Revisit of pr38212 regarding restrict definition
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Bin
Hi,
I am investigating a bug in our target port. It is
due to following optimization done by combine pass.
(zero_extend:SI (reg:BI 120))
is transformed to
(and:SI (subreg:SI (reg:BI 120) 0)
(const_int 255 [0xff]))
in expand_compound_operation (combine.c), where BImode is
just treated as
13 December 2010 07:59
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Bingfeng Mei
> Subject: A question about using restrict
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have the loop below and I want to pass to gcc that src1 and src2
> never
> alias with dst; so I used the restrict keyword as below; how
0:37
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: A question about using restrict
>
> Hello Bingfeng,
>
> Thanks for your reply! I would be very interested to try your patch.
>
> Revital
>
>
>
>
> From: "Bingfeng Mei"
> To: Revital
this is an
wrong transformation and causes the following ICE. Is it allowed that
Eliminate_regs_in_insn to generate such illegal instruction?
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
(reg:SI 4 r4)
(plus:SI (mult:SI (reg:SI 9 r9)
(const_int 8 [0x8]))
(reg:SI 4 r4))) -1 (nil))
and load from [r4] subsequently.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com]
> Sent: 17 December 2010 01:26
>
gt; From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com]
> Sent: 17 December 2010 15:10
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Is eliminate_regs_in_insn allowed to generate invalid
> instruction?
>
> "Bingfeng Mei" writes:
>
> > from gen_reload func
> -Original Message-
> From: Ulrich Weigand [mailto:uweig...@de.ibm.com]
> Sent: 17 December 2010 18:48
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Cc: i...@google.com; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Is eliminate_regs_in_insn allowed to generate invalid
> instructi
> -Original Message-
> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:paolo.bonz...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paolo
> Bonzini
> Sent: 22 December 2010 14:33
> To: Claudiu Zissulescu
> Cc: Bingfeng Mei; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: BImode is treated as normal byte-wide mode and caus
e case, we should have
a compiler hook to choose between them. BTW, I mainly work
on 4.5, maybe 4.6 has changed.
Thanks,
Bingfeng Mei
, the size is
80bytes vs. 352 bytes without patch (-O2 -ftree-vectorize gcc 4.8.3 20131114)
int A[100];
int B[100];
void foo2() {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
A[i] = B[i] + 100;
}
What is the best way to tell vectorizer not to do peeling in such situation?
Thanks,
Bingfeng
faster but bigger, what should be right balance? How to do with cases that are
a bit faster and a lot bigger?
Thanks,
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 November 2013 14:02
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re
guarantee to generate
loop peeling.
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Xinliang David Li [mailto:davi...@google.com]
Sent: 15 November 2013 17:30
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: Richard Biener; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Vectorization: Loop peeling with misaligned support.
The right longer
@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 November 2013 21:26
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Jump threading in tree dom pass prevents if-conversion & following
vectorization
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> I am doing some investigation on loops can be vectorize
[mailto:james.greenha...@arm.com]
Sent: 22 November 2013 11:50
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Jump threading in tree dom pass prevents if-conversion & following
vectorization
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:03:22AM +0000, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Well, in your modified example
rget now.
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: 22 November 2013 16:58
To: Bingfeng Mei; Andrew Pinski
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Jump threading in tree dom pass prevents if-conversion & following
vectorization
On 11/22/13 04:03, Bingfeng Mei w
n
be fixed without disabling jump threading.
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: 22 November 2013 17:17
To: Bingfeng Mei; Andrew Pinski; Richard Biener
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Jump threading in tree dom pass prevents if-conversion &
code1, code2, multi_step_cvt,
interm_types))
return true;
Thanks,
Bingfeng Mei
Hi,
I experienced an issue in our port, which I suspected due to bugs
in ptr_difference_const & split_address_to_core_and_offset. Basically,
ptr_difference_const, called by ivopts pass, tries to evaluate
whether e1 & e2 differ by a const. In this example,
e1 is (addr_expr (mem_ref (ssa_name1, 8))
n the output vector (operand 0)."
So I thought that implementing both can help vectorizer to optimize more loops.
Maybe we should improve documents.
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 January 2014 11:02
To: Bingfeng M
)
+++ gcc/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2014-01-28 Bingfeng Mei
+
+ * doc/md.texi: Mention that a target shouldn't implement
+ vec_widen_(s|u)mul_even/odd pair if it is less efficient
+ than hi/lo pair.
+
2014-01-28 Richard Biener
Revert
Index: g
dr_b);
return refs_may_alias_p (addr_a, addr_b);
This issue can be reproduced on trunk x86-64 gcc.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Thanks, Richard,
I will prepare a patch with test as well as filing a bug.
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: 31 January 2014 15:24
To: Bingfeng Mei; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: No TBAA before ptr_derefs_may_alias_p?
On 1/31/14 4:02 PM
new operator. But this example is pretty clear and has nothing
to
do with C++ and new statement. Isn't it too conservative to disable TBAA for
anti-
& output- dependency here?
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: 31 January 2014
If it is just for C++ placement new, why don't implement it as a lang_hook.
Now other languages such as C have to be made conservative and produce worse
code.
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: 31 January 2014 19:44
To: Bingfeng Mei
Weimer
Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Bingfeng Mei; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: No TBAA before ptr_derefs_may_alias_p?
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 10:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:51:01AM +, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> > > I
te: mark for run-time aliasing test between _10->real and *_7
tst3.c:12: note: versioning for alias required: can't determine dependence
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: 03 February 2014 10:35
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Bingfeng Mei;
[mailto:rguent...@suse.de]
Sent: 03 February 2014 13:16
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: Florian Weimer; Jakub Jelinek; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: No TBAA before ptr_derefs_may_alias_p?
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> For the following code, why can load be moved before store instruction?
>
Hi,
One of biggest issues we have with GCC vectorization is bloated code size.
For example, vectorized version is 2.5 times of non-vectorized one for the
following simple code. One reason is that GCC often creates one loop copy
because of aliasing/alignment and one epilog loop because of loop itera
Thanks, it seems that Cong's idea is exactly what I meant. Is there
a patch I can try?
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Xinliang David Li [mailto:davi...@google.com]
Sent: 04 February 2014 18:57
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Cong Hou
Subject: Re: Merge epilog loop &
haran Sandanagobalane
Cc: Bingfeng Mei; Andrew Haley; GCC Development
Subject: Re: builtin function - novops
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Hariharan Sandanagobalane
wrote:
> Hello,
> This question is similar to one raised by bingfeng here
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00241.html
>
&
If both X & Y are vectors, GCC will report error (at least on our port based on
4.5)
as invalid operands to ==. Not sure if it is extended for 4.7.
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Iyer,
Balaji V
Sent: 17 May 2012 00:01
ivtmp.49];
ivtmp.49 = ivtmp.49 + 4;
if (ivtmp.49 != 1024) goto ; else goto ;
:;
return;
}
Any hint to produce efficient code with "restrict" keyword? Thank in
advance.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
le
difference. Modeling other instructions in a similar way becomes
impossible therefore. It takes forever to build GCC.
What I did wrong here? I just want to model resource usage in issue
slot and writeback stage in order possible stall cycle. What is the
cheap to do this? Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
Sent: 14 March 2008 10:58
To: Bingfeng Mei
Subject: Re: DFA state and arc explosion
Hello,
I maybe totally wrong, but how it is possible that your NDFA DFA and
Minimal DFA are the same? I would think that this indicate some sort
of error.
Jan
2008/3/14, Bingfeng Mei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
don't know
where to look at now. Could someone point me some files/functions/data
structures by which restrict keyword is used and passed to dependence
anaylsis part? Thanks in advance.
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
Example code:
typedef intV4W __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
typedef
o much clue. Thanks.
Bingfeng Mei
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Daniel Berlin
Sent: 15 April 2008 18:03
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Where is restrict keyword used in dependence analysis?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:
int) j * 4, index: D.1759];
ivtmp.19 = ivtmp.19 + 1;
if (ivtmp.19 != 5)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
return;
}
Is it necessary to use "long long unsigned" ivtmp.19 here? It would
require 64-bit addition in the loop.
Cheers,
Bingfeng Mei
Broadcom UK
Ian,
Thanks. My pointer type is 32-bit. But when I tried the ARM target, GCC
4.3.0 does produce simpler code. It is likely my porting has some issue.
Bingfneg
-Original Message-
From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 April 2008 18:31
To: Bingfeng Mei
Cc: gcc
101 - 200 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
