ry for the test to go?
-
ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Easwaran Raman
PR rtl-optimization/62146
* ifcvt.c (dead_or_predicable): Make removal of REG_EQUAL note of
hoisted instruction unconditional.
2014-09-04 Easwaran Raman
PR rtl-optimization/62146
* t
Easwaran
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/25/14 16:42, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>
>> This patch deletes REG_EQUAL note when a src register is replaced by a
>> constant in an assignment. This is to prevent spurious equivalences
>> between the co
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> This patch deletes REG_EQUAL note when a src register is replaced by a
> constant in an assignment. This is to prevent spurious equivalences
> between the constant and the expression in the REG_EQUAL note. In the
> bug reported
?
This patch looks applicable to trunk as well, but I don't have a test
case to reproduce the issue in trunk.
ChangeLog:
2014-08-25 Easwaran Raman
PR rtl-optimization/62146
* cprop.c (try_replace_reg): Remove REG_EQUAL note when a constant is
propagated into the s
Ping.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Before r193504, if a method can not be overridden, LOOKUP_NONVIRTUAL
>> is set and the call is direct. The changes at r193504 (to fix PR
&
Ping.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Before r193504, if a method can not be overridden, LOOKUP_NONVIRTUAL
> is set and the call is direct. The changes at r193504 (to fix PR
> c++/11750) caused a regression to this behavior. This patch attempts
> to fix that
this ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-11-07 Easwaran Raman
PR c++/59031
* call.c (build_new_method_call_1): Comnpare function context
with BASELINK_BINFO type rather than instance type before
marking the call with LOOKUP_NONVIRTUAL.
testsuite/ChangeLog:
2013-11-07 Easwaran Raman
PR c
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> In cfgexpand.c, variables in non-overlapping lexical scopes are
>> assigned same stack locations at -O1 and above. At -O0, this is
>> attempted only if the size
stack. We
are ok with a slight increase in compilation time to get smaller stack
frames even at -O0 and this patch would allow us do that easily.
Bootstraps on x86_64/linux. Is this ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-10-08 Easwaran Raman
* params.def
d all tests pass with the patch on x86_64/linux. Is this
ok for trunk?
2013-10-02 Easwaran Raman
PR c++/33911
* parser.c (cp_parser_init_declarator): Do not drop attributes
of template member functions.
2013-10-02 Easwaran Raman
PR c++/33911
* g++.d
l be small.
> David
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> This patch increases comdat-sharing-probability to 80 under -Os. This
>> reduces the amount of inlining and helps internal benchmarks.
>> Unfortunately, this causes slight regression on spec 2006. Ok for
>> google branches if all tests pass?
>>
>> - Easwaran
This patch increases comdat-sharing-probability to 80 under -Os. This
reduces the amount of inlining and helps internal benchmarks.
Unfortunately, this causes slight regression on spec 2006. Ok for
google branches if all tests pass?
- Easwaran
comdat_sharing.patch
Description: Binary data
Ping.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> There are two separate root causes for the problem reported in PR
> 57393. This patch attempts to fix both.
>
> First is due to newly created stmts that have the default UID of 0
> which are compared with statements
reassociation to decouple them from the SSA variables involved
in reassociation.
This bootstraps in x86_64 and I am running the tests. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-09-16 Easwaran Raman
PR middle-end/57393
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (get_stmt_uid_with_default): Remove
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>>> I have a new patch that
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> I have a new patch that supersedes this. The new patch also fixes PR
>> tree-optimization/57393 and PR tree-optimization/58011. Bootstraps and
>> no test regre
Submitted the patch (r202262) without the insert_stmt_after hunk. Also
fixed nits pointed out by Jakub.
- Easwaran
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Richard Biener
>>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:13:34AM -0700, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> >> There are more similar failures reported in
>> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393 and I have attached
>> >> the
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Richard,
>> Do you want me to commit everything but the insert_stmt_after hunk
>> now?
>
> Yes.
>
>> There are more similar failures report
is used
(find_insert_point and appears_later_in_bb) instead of where the stmt
is created? I think that would be less brittle.
- Easwaran
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> I have a new patch that supersedes
>
>> @@ -543,9 +591,17 @@ edge_hot_enough_p (struct cgraph_edge *edge)
>>if (flag_auto_profile && edge->callee->count == 0
>>&& edge->callee->max_bb_count > 0)
>> return false;
>> - if (PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_INLINE
mp functions. I have
changed the check accordingly. I have attached the new patch.
- Easwaran
> David
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> The current hot caller heuristic simply promotes edges whose caller is
>> hot. This patch does the following:
>&
The current hot caller heuristic simply promotes edges whose caller is
hot. This patch does the following:
* Turn it off for applications with large footprint since the size
increase hurts them
* Be more selective by considering arguments to callee when the
heuristic is enabled.
This performs well
Ping.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> I have a new patch that supersedes this. The new patch also fixes PR
> tree-optimization/57393 and PR tree-optimization/58011. Bootstraps and
> no test regression on x86_64/linux. Ok for trunk?
>
> 2013-07-31
I have a new patch that supersedes this. The new patch also fixes PR
tree-optimization/57393 and PR tree-optimization/58011. Bootstraps and
no test regression on x86_64/linux. Ok for trunk?
2013-07-31 Easwaran Raman
PR middle-end/57370
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (build_and_add_sum): Fix UID
Ping.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> A newly generated statement in build_and_add_sum function of
> tree-ssa-reassoc.c has to be assigned the UID of its adjacent
> statement. In one instance, it was assigned the wrong uid (of an
> earlier phi statement)
regressions on x86_64/linux.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-06-27 Easwaran Raman
PR middle-end/57370
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (build_and_add_sum): Do not use the UID of a phi
node for a non-phi gimple statement.
testsuite/ChangeLog:
2013-06-27 Easwaran Raman
In lipo mode, this patch updates the overall unit size only when the
eventual function to which the callee is inlined is in primary module.
This is to avoid the situation where the module growth budget is used
up by inlines into auxiliary module functions that never get inlined
into some primary mo
outside the loop. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-05-28 Easwaran Raman
PR tree-optimization/57442
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (appears_later_in_bb): Return correct value
when control exits the main loop.
2013-05-28 Easwaran Raman
PR tree-optimization/57442
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> Easwaran R
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Easwaran Raman wrote:
>
>>In that case, if my insert_stmt immediately follows dep_stmt and both
>>have the same UID, not_dominated_by would return true and I will end
>>up updating insert_stmt to dep_stmt which
PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> This addresses the case where UID alone is not sufficient to figure
>> out which statement appears earlier in a BB. Bootstraps and no test
>> regressions in x86_64 on linux. Ok for trunk?
>
> Why not simply conservatively use gimple_uid
This addresses the case where UID alone is not sufficient to figure
out which statement appears earlier in a BB. Bootstraps and no test
regressions in x86_64 on linux. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2013-05-23 Easwaran Raman
PR tree-optimization/57337
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c
hanks,
Easwaran
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> PR tree-optimization/57322
>> * (build_and_add_sum): If a BB is empty, set the UID of the statement
>> added to
---
2013-05-19 Easwaran Raman
PR tree-optimization/57322
* (build_and_add_sum): If a BB is empty, set the UID of the statement
added to the BB to be 1.
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
===
--- gcc/tree
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> It seems I need to reset the debug uses of a statement before moving
>> the statement itself. The attached patch starts from the leaf to root
>> of the tree t
This patch dumps the column number as part of dump_loc making the
output similar to inform(). This allows these messages to be pattern
matched by dg_message. Bootstraps with this change. Ok for trunk?
- Easwaran
-
2013-05-14 Easwaran Raman
* dumpfile.c (dump_loc): Print column number
I want to resend this patch for consideration. I applied the patch to
trunk and confirmed that it bootstraps and doesn't cause test
regressions. Is this ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> It seems I need to reset the debug uses of a s
. Ok if there are no test failures?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2012-12-07 Easwaran Raman
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c(find_insert_point): New function.
(insert_stmt_after): Likewise.
(get_def_stmt): Likewise.
(ensure_ops_are_available): Likewise.
(rewrite_expr_tree): Do not move statements beyond what is
I'd like to get a small patch to tree reassociation (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01761.html ) in.
Thanks,
Easwaran
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th.
the debug statements would be
very helpful.
Thanks,
Easwaran
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:02 AM,
Ping.
- Easwaran
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>&g
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> Ping.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> >> >
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > This patch fixes bugs introduced by my previous patch to propagate
>> > profiles durin
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>&
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > This patch fixes bugs introduced by my previous patch to propagate
>> > profiles during switch expansion.
Ping.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch fixes bugs introduced by my previous patch to propagate
> profiles during switch expansion. Bootstrap and profiledbootstrap
> successful on x86_64. Confirmed that it fixes the crashes reported in
>
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> During expression reassociation, statements are conservatively moved
>> downwards to ensure that dependences are correctly satisfied after
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> During expression reassociation, statements are conservatively moved
>> downwards to ensure that dependences are correctly satisfied after
x86_64/linux. OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Easwaran
2012-10-18 Easwaran Raman
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c(assign_uids): New function.
(assign_uids_in_relevant_bbs): Likewise.
(ensure_ops_are_available): Likewise.
(rewrite_expr_tree): Do not move statements beyond what is
necessary. Remove call to
Hi,
This patch fixes bugs introduced by my previous patch to propagate
profiles during switch expansion. Bootstrap and profiledbootstrap
successful on x86_64. Confirmed that it fixes the crashes reported in
PR middle-end/54957. OK for trunk?
- Easwaran
2012-10-17 Easwaran Raman
PR
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Index: optabs.c
> ===
> --- optabs.c(revision 191879)
> +++ optabs.c(working copy)
> @@ -4249,7 +4249,7 @@ prepare_operand (enum insn_code icode, rtx x, int
> w
Ping.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> I have attached a revised patch. The updated ChangeLog is given below
> and I have responded to your comments inline:
>
> 2012-10-08 Easwaran Raman
> * optabs.c (emit_cmp_and_jump_insn_1): Add a new parameter to
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is
>> not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to compensate for the
>> possible l
Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is
not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to compensate for the
possible live range lengthening introduced by reassociation.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Easwa
regressions on a x86_64 machine running linux. Ok for
google/4_7 and google/main branches?
Google ref b/6982747
2012-10-11 Easwaran Raman
* libsupc++/Makefile.am: Add del_opsz.cc to sources.
* libsupc++/Makefile.in: Regenerated.
* libsupc++/del_opsz.cc: New file
reassociation and pushes them upwards in the BB
as far as possible without violating dependences. Bootstraps and no
tests regressions on a x86_64 machine running linux. Ok for trunk?
- Easwaran
---
2012-10-10 Easwaran Raman
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (move_stmt_upwards): New function
>
>>
>> > +
>> > + default_edge->count = default_count;
>> > + if (count)
>> > +{
>> > + edge e;
>> > + edge_iterator ei;
>> > + FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, stmt_bb->succs)
>> > +e->probability = e->count * REG_BR_PROB_BASE / count;
>> > +}
>>
>> Hmm, this updates origina
Hi Honza,
I am addressing some of the questions you raise here. Will send an
updated patch later.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > @@ -560,7 +577,6 @@ compute_outgoing_frequencies (basic_block b)
> >return;
> > }
> > }
> > -
> >if (single_succ_p (b))
> >
corresponding to the cases are (nearly the) same as
at the gimple level.
Bootstrapped and profile-bootstrapped on an x86_64/linux machine. OK for trunk?
- Easwaran
--
2012-10-02 Easwaran Raman
* cfgbuild.c (gen_probabilities_from_existing_counts): New function.
(compute_outgoing_frequencies): If
ChangeLog entry has a gcc/ prefix that shouldn't be there. Here is the
revised entry:
2012-06-14 Easwaran Raman
* passes.c (init_optimization_passes): Remove pass_call_cdce
from its current position and insert after pass_dce.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Easwaran
only pow, which can then
be shrink-wrapped by cdce. So it seems reasonable to do this
reordering. Bootstraps on x86_64 on linux with no test regression. OK
for trunk?
- Easwaran
--
2012-06-14 Easwaran Raman
* gcc/passes.c (init_optimization_passes): R
Ping.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>> This patch propagates execution count of thee case labels of a
>>>> switch-c
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> This patch propagates execution count of thee case labels of a
>>> switch-case statement after its expansion. Bootstraps and all
>>> tests pass. OK for
I want to revive this patch for mainline and have some questions on
Honza's comments.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> A known limitation is that value profiling is not yet sampled, but it
>> does not seem to cause problems.
>
> For the performance alone, we probably don'
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> This patch propagates execution count of thee case labels of a
>> switch-case statement after its expansion. Bootstraps and all
>> tests pass. OK for trunk?
>
> Hi,
> while this is resonable thing to do, I belive it would make most sense
> to
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Easwaran Raman writes:
>
>> Some more background on this patch: Right now, while the execution
>> counts of different case labels of a switch statement are obtained
>> during profile collection, they are not pr
equally which can cause poor optimization of
hot code. This patch ensures that the counts collected during profile
collection are correctly propagated allowing hot code to be better
optimized by RTL optimizations. Patch tested on x86_64.
- Easwaran
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Easwaran Raman
This patch propagates execution count of thee case labels of a
switch-case statement after its expansion. Bootstraps and all
tests pass. OK for trunk?
2012-03-23 Easwaran Raman
* cfgbuild.c (non_zero_profile_counts): New function.
(compute_outgoing_frequencies): If at least
that compiling a C++ program that uses std::vector with -fsized-delete invokes
the two parameter version of operator delete.
OK for google/main and google/4_6 branches?
c-family/ChangeLog.google-main:
2012-03-12 Easwaran Raman
* c-cppbuiltin.c (c_cpp_builtins): Define
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Ok for google branch with minor changes below.
>
> thanks,
>
> David
>
>>> +#define case_probability(x, y) ((y) ? ((x) * REG_BR_PROB_BASE / (y)) :
>>> -1)
>>> +
>
> Using upper case for macro?
From http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions
This patch propagates profile information to RTL level when expanding
switch statements using jump table or a binary tree of branches.
Ok for google/gcc-4_6 branch? I would like the patch to be considered
for trunk when stage 1 opens again.
-Easwaran
2012-01-31 Easwaran Raman
s and no test regression. OK for google/main and
google/gcc-4_6 branches?
-
011-12-17 Easwaran Raman
* common.opt (fsized-delete): New option.
cp/ChangeLog.google-main:
2011-12-17 Easwaran Raman
* decl.c (cxx_init_decl_processing): Specify a function that
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 09:37 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments Paolo. I have attached the new patch. I have
>>> bumped th
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 09:37 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the comments Paolo. I have attached the new patch. I have
>> bumped the version to 3.4.18
>
> You shouldn't: 4.7 is not out yet, thus no reason
Thanks for the comments Paolo. I have attached the new patch. I have
bumped the version to 3.4.18 and used _ZdlPv[jmy] in gnu.ver. I have
also added the symbol to baseline_symbols.txt of other targets.
-Easwaran
2011-12-11 Easwaran Raman
* common.opt (fsized-delete
?
---
2011-12-11 Easwaran Raman
* common.opt (fsized-delete): New option.
cp/ChangeLog.google-4_6:
2011-12-11 Easwaran Raman
* decl.c (cxx_init_decl_processing): Specify a function that
takes a void* and size_t for DELETE_EXPR.
* call.c
branches?
-Easwaran
2011-09-30 Easwaran Raman
* tree-profile.c (gcov_sample_counter_decl): Add GTY marker.
(gcov_sampling_rate_decl): Likewise.
(add_sampling_to_edge_counters): Do not free
instrumentation_to_be_sampled.
(cleanup_instrumentation_sampling): New
OK for google/gcc-4_6 and google/main branches.
-Easwaran
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>>
>> Made all the changes. Attaching new patch of updated files.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>
+static inline hashval_t
+edge_hash_function (unsigned int id1, unsigned int id2)
+{
+ /* If the number of functions is less than 1000, this gives a unique value
+ for every function id combination. */
+ const int MULTIPLIER = 1000;
+ return id1* MULTIPLIER + id2;
Change to id1 << 16 | id2
Commited.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:02:35PM -0700, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> + if (y_expr)
>> + mark_addressable (y_expr);
>
> Please watch formatting, a tab should be used instead of 8 spaces.
&
, would you mind posting a consolidated patch?
>
> --
> Eric Botcazou
>
Here is the revised patch. Bootstraps and all tests pass on
x86_64-unknown-linux. OK for trunk?
2011-06-23 Easwaran Raman
PR rtl-optimization/49429
PR target/49454
* expr.c (emit_bl
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I fear this isn't enough considering pass-by-value aggregates that
>> are callee copied.
>
> It's indeed not sufficient for arguments passed by reference but
> callee-copied.
>
> This is PR target/49454. For gcc.c-torture/execute/2717-
This fixes bugs introduced by r175063. OK for trunk if there are no
test regressions?
-Easwaran
2011-06-20 Easwaran Raman
PR rtl-optimization/49429
* expr.c (emit_block_move_hints): Mark MEM_EXPR(x) and
MEM_EXPR(y) addressable if emit_block_move_via_libcall is
TREE lying around. Is passing
the tree EXP to emit_block_move from store_expr a reasonable approach?
-Easwaran
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> This patch seems to break ia64 and some other targets. I have updated
> Bug 49429 with a test case triage. It looks like for
4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/10/11 13:18, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>
>>>> I am not sure I understand the problem here. If there is a wild read
>>>> from asm, the instruction has the wild_read
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>
Ping.
Diego, David,
Is this patch OK for google/main?
-Easwaran
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00781.html
>>
>
Ping.
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00781.html
>
Ping.
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00781.html
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00781.html
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 04/26/11 16:06, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> You're right. The patc
This patch by Silvius Rus replaces calls to certain functions with a
specialized version that uses non-temporal stores based on memory reuse
distance profiling. Bootstraps, no test regressions and the profiling works for
a small test case. Ok for google/main.?
-Easwaran
2011-05-09 Silvius Ru
Thanks. Fixed them (as well as the same issue in some earlier entries).
-Easwaran
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 14:22, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Backported r172788 and r172837 from trunk to google/main.
>>
>>
> Mi
Backported r172788 and r172837 from trunk to google/main.
2011-05-06 Easwaran Raman
Backport r172837:
* cfgexpand.c (stack_var): Remove OFFSET...
(add_stack_var): ...and its reference here...
(expand_stack_vars): ...and here.
(stack_var_cmp): Sort by
gt; On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> This patch from Silvius Rus adds support for sampled edge profile
>> collection to reduce instrumentation run overhead. Bootstraps and no test
>> regressions. Ok for google/main?
>>
>> 2011-04-28
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/26/11 16:06, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>
>>
>>> You're right. The patch has correctness issues. It is not possible to
>>> simply n
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Silvius Rus wrote:
>> How is code-size affected with this patch, non-instrumented vs.
>> regular-instrumented vs. sample-instrumented?
>
> I don't have the numbers, but the increase in code size from
> regular-instrumented to sample-instrumented is larger than that
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
