https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka ---
Crafty perfomrance is back (with a combination of better heuristics and
increase of inlining limits), eon is not, at least not in all configurations.
We have separate eon PR, so I am closing this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
>
> --- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > Seems to be a regression with -flto only? I a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Seems to be a regression with -flto only? I also see EON regressing without
> -flto.
Yes, the inlining is cross file.
>
> http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-megrez-head-64/index.html
Saw that one too. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #21 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Actually at second thought, would BIT_FIEL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually at second thought, would BIT_FIELD_REF allow us to
avoid the actual memory store? I tought like COMPONENT_REF it takes address as
parameter. What I am hoping is to fully optimize out union doub x; at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> But yes, in principle we can do sth fancy for union loads, though I'd
> use BIT_FIELD_REFs (hoping no issues wrt endian...) as the canonical
> and "easy" way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
> :
> x.d = arg1_3(D);
> _5 = x.i[3];
> if (_5 != 0)
> goto ;
> else
> goto ;
> ...
> :
> _12 = x.i[2];
> if (_12 != 0)
> goto ;
> else
> goto ;
>
> to sth like
>
> :
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> The inline bump needed is about 23. Richard, i guess convincing early
> optimizers to turn that hack into shifts (that is done by GCC but only at
> RTL time), i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
The inline bump needed is about 23. Richard, i guess convincing early
optimizers to turn that hack into shifts (that is done by GCC but only at RTL
time), is out of reach for this release, right?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Mar 29 15:38:52 2015
New Revision: 221763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65478
* params.def (PARAM_IPA_CP_RECURSION_PENALTY) : New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> Actually, there is one detail. Cloning SCC and keeping it a SCC is cool
> thing (as one avoid passing constant parameter across the recursive loop),
> but clonnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 35159
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35159&action=edit
Patch implementing cloning penalties
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > This suggests that cloning of function Search and not inlining
> > NextMove is only part of the story.
> >
>
> I'm attaching output of my script that compares inlining decisions.
> "File 1" is wpa inlinin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 35127
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35127&action=edit
Inlining decisions difference
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #6)
> This suggests that cloning of funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > We also may consider adding bit of negative hints for cases where
> > cloning would turn function called once (by noncold edge) to a
> > function called twice.
>
> This would be much easier, although the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thre regression seems to be visible at
http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-frescobaldi.suse.de-ai-64/186_crafty_big.png
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Which options (LTO?)? I can't see the regression on our testers.
-Ofast -flto -funroll-loops
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |ipa
Summary|crafty performance
25 matches
Mail list logo
