On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 10:31 -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > for project http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/PreservingLoops, I am considering
> > introducing a tree LOOP_HEADER with single argument N (number of
> > iterations of the loop), that would be present in IL at the beginning of
> > heade
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:01 -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
> > > However, various optimizer needs to know about this special tree node.
> >
> > not really (not any more than they know about other tree codes that are
> > not interesting for them).
>
> If we take an example of Jump Threading pass then i
On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 00:45 +0200, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> actually, that will be trivial once jump threading updates loop properly
> (I have a patch for that).
I'd like to see that.
I recall poking at having threading update things like loop exit
points and gave up. The problem is you could thre
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:08 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Markus Franke wrote on 11/27/06 12:50:
>
> > Are there also some other optimisation passes working on the GIMPLE/SSA
> > representation which make use of any machine-dependent features?
> >
> Yes. Passes like vectorization and loop optimi
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 12:21 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/21/06, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Robert Kennedy wrote on 12/21/06 11:37:
> >
> > > The situation is that some SSA_NAMEs are disused (removed from the
> > > code) without being released onto the free list by
> > > rel
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 11:55 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Robert Kennedy wrote on 12/21/06 11:37:
>
> > The situation is that some SSA_NAMEs are disused (removed from the
> > code) without being released onto the free list by
> > release_ssa_name().
> >
> Yes, it happens if a name is put into t
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 10:08 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
First, let's go ahead and define an orphan. An orphan is an SSA_NAME
which has SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT pointing to a statement which does not
appear in the IL.
> I may be missing something, but I don't think that is the interesting
> issue her
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 14:05 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In any case, that is not important. I agree that every SSA name in the
> SSA table needs to have a DEF_STMT that is either (a) an empty
> statement, or, (b) a valid statement still present in the IL.
Just to be 100% clear. This is not tr
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 20:18 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> I think this might be a good idea. I think that this requires
> a lot of changes (basically going through all uses of bsi_remove
> and remove_phi_node and checking them), but it would be cleaner
> than the current situation.
Agreed. Tedio
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 10:58 -0800, Robert Kennedy wrote:
> > Right now we can have SSA_NAMEs in the
> > list which are no longer used, and we have no way to tell whether they
> > are used or not. Thus the only way to see all valid SSA_NAMEs is to
> > walk the code.
>
> To wit: are there iteration
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 10:54 -0800, Robert Kennedy wrote:
> > In this case this isn't true, because we have code that orphans ssa
> > names without releasing them.
> > I'm sure Robert will explain further details in a few moments :)
>
> Actually you explained all the relevant details. The question
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 09:08 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
>
> As expected, more complications than I believed appeared. The changes
> to bsi_remove and release_defs would be basically sufficient for ssa
> names for real operands, however we are losing ssa names for virtual
> operands everywhere, a
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 12:44 +0530, pranav bhandarkar wrote:
> On 1/17/07, Mircea Namolaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thanks. Another question I have is that, in this case, will the
> > following
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Sign_Extension_Removal
> > >
> > > help in removal of the sign
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 09:41 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> There appear to be more bit operations in RTL, so perhaps it is a
> better idea to implement a known-bits propagation pass for RTL, with
> the new dataflow engine.
If that's the case then most of the opportunities are appearing due to
low
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:14 -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > Do you realize how confrontational your emails sound? Have you
> >considered asking about the technical reasoning and justification instead
> >of making unfounded assertions? Do you want everyone to refu
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 18:09 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > int x;
> > {
> > int y;
> > {
> > int z;
> > ...
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > just happens to have three statements, all VAR_DECL,x, y, z, without
> > any reference to the starting and
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 15:06 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I think the BIT_FIELD_REF should be properly folded to a constant or
> the propagation not done.
Agreed. I'd lean towards folding the BIT_FIELD_REF to a constant, but
if that isn't easy I'd recommend avoiding the propagation.
Jeff
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 18:28 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> This is the project proposal that I am planning to submit to Google
> Summer of Code 2007. It is based on previous work of Jeffrey Laws,
> Diego Novillo and others. I hope someone will find it interesting and
> perhaps would like to ac
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 18:45 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 19/03/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:49:55PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > > Perhaps this ought to be looked at again with some seriousness.
> >
> > I think this is an idea whose t
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 08:17 +1100, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Paul Brook wrote:
>
> > The problem is that I don't think writing a detailed "mission statement" is
> > actually going to help anything. It's either going to be gcc contributors
> > writing down what they're doing
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:24 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 3/25/07, Charles J. Tabony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So I think that the easiest way to integrate this with the rest of the
> > > compiler is to have a target hook that emits trees to compute SHIFT, INV1
> > > and INV2.
>
> I don'
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 07:47 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 3/27/07, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* postreload.c (reload_cse_move2add): Don't look for strict lowparts
> >of coprocessor modes.
>
> This changes is not in your patch.
>
>
> >* c-typeck.c (conve
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 10:56 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we run SPEC on every
> >> architecture, and then make -O2 be the set of optimization options that
> >> happens to do best
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
> > I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
> > between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
> > what they used or knew about. No
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 15:08 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Matt Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is it possible for me to write a backend that accepts certain
> > addressing modes for loads, while rejecting them for stores? I am not
> > sure how to do this with the GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRES
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 10:49 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 5:00 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> > In the particular case of two static functions or two static global
> > pointers, it is possible for the compiler to compute it. Isn't it? I
> > think that the linker will reorder the sec
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 10:53 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> (In my opinion, it doesn't really matter if MODIFY_EXPR is treated as
> doing an implicit conversion; the important thing is that the set of
> places where implicit conversions are performed be both limited and
> documented. If we save ton
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:57 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Hi Diego,
> >
> >> Jeff's point about our optimizers is also true. Nick, remember that
> >> issue with MIPS optimizations you were discussing with Jeff a few days
> >> ago? I didn't follow most of the details, but
On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 19:26 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Toon Moene:
>
> > Well, I'd like to order, but it is unclear from the online
> > documentation whether I'm eligible for the educational / non-profit
> > price.
> >
> > $ 800 is a bit too much - even for my most prominent hobby.
>
> I kn
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 15:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Andrew --
>
> I'm trying to firm up GCC 4.3 planning a bit. One of the things I'm
> considering is whether or not the POINTER_PLUS branch should be merged
> as part of 4.3. My understanding from looking at your emails is that
> the branch
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Jeffrey Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I haven't followed PTR_PLUS development at all -- what specifically
> > spurred you to hack on this Andrew?
>
> Since we lose a
> lot of alignmen
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:53 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 5/30/07, Jeffrey Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > The next step is to see if that patch is no longer needed for hppa
> > > (well and fixin
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 13:07 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 7/3/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/2/07, Uros Bizjak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > > I'm curious if it was the pre/fre changes. can you try -fno-tree-pre
> > > > and -fno-tree-fre a
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 08:29 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > Sorry, but again, this is not a good enough justification to me.
> > We do a lot of things different than "The GNU Project".
> > So do plenty of parts of the "official GNU project".
> > They use different coding standards, bug tracking s
34 matches
Mail list logo
