https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38401
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
The issue with the patch is that it does speculation for expressions that might
invoke undefined behavior. Like for gcc.c-torture/execute/2801-2.c where
it speculates a load from the next-next iteratio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38401
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
I'm testing my original patch now and have thrown it on one of our SPEC testers
as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38401
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
--- Comment #25 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-30 23:30
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> Unfortunately, there is still no word from the FSF on what they did with our
> Copyright Assignment.
As already mentioned in PR 38785, I've posted the patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
--- Comment #24 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-02 20:02
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> If you post a patch to add the option to enable/disable partial-PRE I will
> happily review and approve it for 4.4.
I experimented using Seteven Bosscher's patch as a starting point and
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #23 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 14:58
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> If you post a patch to add the option to enable/disable partial-PRE I will
> happily review and approve it for 4.4.
I'd be happy to post the patch, but we (ARC) are still waiting for th
--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-13 14:29 ---
Subject: Re: TreeSSA-PRE load after store missed
optimization
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #21 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 14:11
> ---
> (In rep
--- Comment #21 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 14:11
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> office: 1.39% worse
Actually, this is the EEMBC version with bezier01, where the entire benchmark
gets optized away and thus tiny changes in the cost of the set-up code make
noticea
--- Comment #20 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 14:00
---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Joern, nobody is forcing you to follow the crowd if you think the crowd is
> going in the wrong direction.
I have evidence that the direction is wrong. I added a new option to disable
--- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 08:19 ---
Joern, nobody is forcing you to follow the crowd if you think the crowd is
going in the wrong direction.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38401
--- Comment #18 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 18:09
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> I think enabling partial PRE to do it is appropriate (with at most inserting
> on one edge).
I think the abstraction with tree-ssa and cfglayout mode has gone too far.
We no longer have
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 22:17
---
I think enabling partial PRE to do it is appropriate (with at most inserting
on one edge).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38401
--- Comment #16 from sergeid at il dot ibm dot com 2008-12-21 07:44 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Re. comment #14: Yes, I suppose so. Why do you want to remove gcse-las from
> mainline. Not that I'm against it -- ideally RTL gcse.c would not work on
> memory at all anymore -- but I w
14 matches
Mail list logo
