v5: Refine patch and send this for gcc14 stage1.
v4: Address comments.
4.1. Handle GIMPLE_GOTO and GIMPLE_ASM.
4.2. Fix failure of limit-caselabels.c (labels on same line),
pointer_array_1.f90 (unused labels) etc.
v3: Add compute_target_labels and call it in the front of make_blocks_1.
v2: Che
Thanks,
On 2023/3/31 03:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:59:52AM +0800, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
The native RTL expression for vec_mrghw should be same for BE and LE as
they are register and endian-independent.
This isn't so obvious at all.
I have a case ICE in lto-partion.c:158 not easy to reduce, this ICE
appears some time ago from link:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586290.html.
I tried the proposed patch but it doesn't work for me.
Then I did some hack and finally got a successful lto link to compare
wit
On 2023/3/9 20:02, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2023/3/7 19:25, Richard Biener wrote:
It would be nice to avoid creating blocks / preserving labels we'll
immediately remove again. For that we do need some analysis
before creating basic-blocks that determ
On 2023/3/9 20:02, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2023/3/7 19:25, Richard Biener wrote:
It would be nice to avoid creating blocks / preserving labels we'll
immediately remove again. For that we do need some analysis
before creating basic-blocks that determ
On 2023/3/7 19:25, Richard Biener wrote:
It would be nice to avoid creating blocks / preserving labels we'll
immediately remove again. For that we do need some analysis
before creating basic-blocks that determines whether a label is
possibly reached by a non-falltru edge.
:
p = 0;
switch
On 2023/3/7 16:53, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Xionghu Luo wrote:
Unfortunately this change (flag_test_coverage -> !optimize ) caused hundred
of gfortran cases execution failure with O0. Take gfortran.dg/index.f90 for
example:
.gimple:
__attribute__((fn spec (". ")))
void p
On 2023/3/6 16:11, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:22 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2023/3/2 18:45, Richard Biener wrote:
small.gcno: 648: block 2:`small.c':1, 3, 4, 6
small.gcno: 688:0145: 36:LINES
small.gcno: 700: blo
On 2023/3/2 18:45, Richard Biener wrote:
small.gcno: 648: block 2:`small.c':1, 3, 4, 6
small.gcno: 688:0145: 36:LINES
small.gcno: 700: block 3:`small.c':8, 9
small.gcno: 732:0145: 32:LINES
small.gcno: 744:
On 2023/3/2 16:41, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:31 AM Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches
wrote:
When spliting edge with self loop, the split edge should be placed just next to
the edge_in->src, otherwise it may generate different position latch bbs for
two consecutive self lo
On 2023/3/2 16:16, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:31 AM Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches
wrote:
For case like belowi test.c:
1:int foo(char c)
2:{
3: return ((c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z')
4: || (c >= 'a' && c <= &#x
For case like belowi test.c:
1:int foo(char c)
2:{
3: return ((c >= 'A' && c <= 'Z')
4: || (c >= 'a' && c <= 'z')
5: || (c >= '0' && c <='0'));}
the generated line number is incorrect for condition c>='A' of block 2:
Thus correct the condition op0 location.
gcno diff before and with
When spliting edge with self loop, the split edge should be placed just next to
the edge_in->src, otherwise it may generate different position latch bbs for
two consecutive self loops. For details, please refer to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93680#c4
Regression tested pass on x8
Hi Segher, Ping this for stage 4...
On 2023/2/10 10:59, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Resend this patch...
v4: Update per comments.
v3: rename altivec_vmrghb_direct_le to altivec_vmrglb_direct_le to match
the actual output ASM vmrglb. Likewise for all similar xxx_direct_le
patterns.
v2
Resend this patch...
v4: Update per comments.
v3: rename altivec_vmrghb_direct_le to altivec_vmrglb_direct_le to match
the actual output ASM vmrglb. Likewise for all similar xxx_direct_le
patterns.
v2: Split the direct pattern to be and le with same RTL but different insn.
The native RTL expressi
Thanks Kewen!
Ping this again @Segher.
Maybe we could also merge this patch if no objections from Segher as
several reviews and tests taken on this already...
BR,
Xionghu
On 2023/1/18 17:11, Kewen.Lin wrote:
Hi Segher,
I guessed that this patch escaped from your radar. :)
As Jakub asked t
Hi Segher, I'd like to resend and ping for this patch. Thanks.
From 23bffdacdf0eb1140c7a3571e6158797f4818d57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xionghu Luo
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 03:44:58 +
Subject: [PATCH v4] rs6000: Fix incorrect RTL for Power LE when removing the
UNSPECS [PR106069]
v4: Update
On 2022/8/16 14:53, Kewen.Lin wrote:
Hi Xionghu,
Thanks for the updated version of patch, some comments are inlined.
on 2022/8/11 14:15, Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2022/8/11 01:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 02:39:02PM +0800, Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2022/8/9 11:01, Kewen
On 2022/8/11 01:07, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 02:39:02PM +0800, Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2022/8/9 11:01, Kewen.Lin wrote:
I have some concern on those changed "altivec_*_direct", IMHO the suffix
"_direct" is normally to indicate the define_insn is mapped to the
correspon
On 2022/8/9 11:01, Kewen.Lin wrote:
Hi Xionghu,
Thanks for the fix.
on 2022/8/8 11:42, Xionghu Luo wrote:
The native RTL expression for vec_mrghw should be same for BE and LE as
they are register and endian-independent. So both BE and LE need
generate exactly same RTL with index [0 4 1 5]
The native RTL expression for vec_mrghw should be same for BE and LE as
they are register and endian-independent. So both BE and LE need
generate exactly same RTL with index [0 4 1 5] when expanding vec_mrghw
with vec_select and vec_concat.
(set (reg:V4SI 141) (vec_select:V4SI (vec_concat:V8SI
Fix typo and commit as obvious.
Signed-off-by: Xionghu Luo
gcc/ChangeLog:
* cgraph.cc (cgraph_edge::redirect_call_stmt_to_callee): Fix
typo.
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.cc (struct iv_cand): Likewise.
* tree-switch-conversion.h: Likewise.
---
gcc/cgraph.cc
There is a corner case for speculative multiple targets, that if speculative
edges are streamed to different ltrans units, and then edges are expanded
in one ltrans unit but the speculative property is not cleared by
resolve_speculation in other ltrans unit finally cause ICE. This patch
fixes this
On 2022/6/21 15:42, Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/21/22 09:33, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 09:28 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
Sorry, but I don't see to which email this replies to?
Can't find a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-June/596913.html
Hm, interesting. I
On 2022/6/21 15:33, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:06 AM xionghuluo(罗雄虎) via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Bootstrap and regression tested pass on x86_64-linux-gnu, OK for master?
OK if you add a comment that an empty conditions_in_bbs indicates we are
processing th
Correct the format...
test2:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
xorl %edx, %edx
cmpl $3, (%rdi)
jle .L1
movl 16(%rdi), %eax
cmpl $1, %eax
je .L4
subl $2, %eax
cmpl $4, %eax
ja .L1
movl C
On 2022/1/11 06:55, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> +(define_insn_and_split "sldoi_to_mov_"
> It would be more consistent with the naming convention to use
> "sldoi_to_mov" without the final "_".
OK, thanks.
>
>>> + [(set (match_operand:VM 0 "altivec_register_operand")
>>> + (unspec:VM [(match
r12-6087 will avoid move cold bb out of hot loop, while the original
intent of this testcase is to hoist divides out of loop and CSE them to
only one divide. So increase the loop count to turn the cold bb to hot
bb again. Then the 3 divides could be rewritten with same reciptmp.
Tested pass on P
Ping, thanks.
On 2021/12/13 13:16, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> Add specialized version to combine two instructions from
>
> 9: {r123:CC=cmp(r124:DI&0x6,0);clobber scratch;}
>REG_DEAD r124:DI
> 10: pc={(r123:CC==0)?L15:pc}
> REG_DEAD r123:CC
>
> to:
>
> 10: {pc={(r123:DI&0x600
Gentle ping, thanks.
On 2021/12/29 09:27, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> 7: r120:V4SI=const_vector
> 8: r121:V4SI=unspec[r120:V4SI,r120:V4SI,0xc] 260
>
> with r121:v4SI = r120:V4SI when r120 is a vector with same element.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested pass on powerpc64le-linux-gnu {P10, P9}
> and powerp
On 2021/12/29 20:55, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Xiong Hu Luo
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * loop-invariant.c (find_invariants_bb): Check profile count
>>> before motion.
>>> (find_invariants_body): Add argument.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * gcc.dg/loop-inva
On 2021/12/17 09:30, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/16 19:20, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
>>> OK. Comments like?
>>>
>>> /* Don't move insn of cold BB out of loop to preheader to reduce
>>> calculati
7: r120:V4SI=const_vector
8: r121:V4SI=unspec[r120:V4SI,r120:V4SI,0xc] 260
with r121:v4SI = r120:V4SI when r120 is a vector with same element.
Bootstrapped and regtested pass on powerpc64le-linux-gnu {P10, P9}
and powerpc64-linux-gnu {P8, P7}. OK for master?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6
Bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64le-linux-gnu {P10,P9}
powerpc64-linux-gnu {P8, P7} and X86. OK for master?
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR 90323
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_context::simplify_binary_operation_1): Relax
C from constant to constant or reg.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
On 2021/12/29 03:33, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> -/* Proportion second loop's bb counts except those dominated by false
>> - branch to avoid drop 1s down. */
>> -basic_block bbi_copy = get_bb_copy (false_edge->dest);
>> -bbs2 = get_loop_body (loop2);
>> -for (j = 0; j < loop2->n
no-guess-branch-probability option requires profile_count with initialized_p
guard. Also merge the missed part of r12-6086 of factor out function to
avoid duplicate code.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR 103793
* tree-ssa-loop-split.c (fix_loop_bb_probability): New function.
(split_loop
On 2021/12/20 15:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:32 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/12/7 20:17, Richard Biener wrote:
> + class loop *coldest_loop = coldest_outermost_loop[loop->num];
> + if (loop_depth (coldest_loop) < loop_depth (outermost_loop))
>
On 2021/12/13 16:57, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/9 07:47, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
>>> index 3f6ad046623..33128061aab 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
On 2021/12/16 19:18, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ./contrib/analyze_brprob.py ~/workspace/tests/spec2017/dump_file_all
>>> HEURISTICS BRANCHES (REL) BR. HITRATE
>>> HITRATE COVERAGE COVERAGE (REL) predict.def (REL) HOT
>>> branches (>10%)
>
On 2021/12/21 09:32, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Explicit clobbers like this help one side of the issue. For vscr, other
> than the sat bit there is only the nj bit, and we just ignore that :-)
>
>> This patch is okay. Thanks for updating the machine description and
>> for cleaning up the formatt
On 2021/12/21 10:19, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/21 09:32, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:55 PM Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:45:45AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>&
On 2021/12/21 09:32, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:55 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:45:45AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 3:24 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
These four UNSPECS seems could be replaced with native RTL,
These four UNSPECS seems could be replaced with native RTL, and why
"(set (reg:SI VSCR_REGNO) (unspec:SI [(const_int 0)] UNSPEC_SET_VSCR))"
in the RTL pattern, per ISA of VSCR bit 127(VECTOR Saturation, SAT):
This bit is sticky; that is, once set to 1 it
remains set to 1 until it is set to 0 b
On 2021/12/16 19:20, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> OK. Comments like?
>>
>> /* Don't move insn of cold BB out of loop to preheader to reduce calculations
>>and register live range in hot loop with cold BB. */
>
> Looks good.
>>
>>
>> And maybe some dump log will help tracking in xxx.c.271r.lo
On 2021/12/15 18:34, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 12/15/21 02:58, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>> Also add verbose argument support like analyze_brprob.py
>>
>> contrib/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * analyze_brprob_spec.py: Add verbose argument.
>> ---
>> contrib/analyze_brprob_spec.py | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1
On 2021/12/14 17:27, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/13 17:25, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> r12-4526 cancelled jump thread path rotates loop. It exposes a issue in
>>> profile-estimate when predict_extra_loop_exits, outer loop's exit edge
>>
Also add verbose argument support like analyze_brprob.py
contrib/ChangeLog:
* analyze_brprob_spec.py: Add verbose argument.
---
contrib/analyze_brprob_spec.py | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/contrib/analyze_brprob_spec.py b/contrib/analyze_brprob_spec.py
index e621853
On 2021/12/13 17:25, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> r12-4526 cancelled jump thread path rotates loop. It exposes a issue in
>> profile-estimate when predict_extra_loop_exits, outer loop's exit edge
>> is marked as inner loop's extra loop exit and set with incorrect
>> prediction, then a hot inner loop wi
On 2021/12/13 18:24, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * loop-invariant.c (find_invariants_bb): Check profile count
>>> before motion.
>>> (find_invariants_body): Add argument.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/loop-invariant.c | 10 +++---
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 delet
On 2021/12/9 07:47, Jeff Law wrote:
>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
>> index 3f6ad046623..33128061aab 100644
>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
>>
>> @@ -607,6 +610,38 @@ split_loop (class loop *loop1)
>> tree guard_n
Add specialized version to combine two instructions from
9: {r123:CC=cmp(r124:DI&0x6,0);clobber scratch;}
REG_DEAD r124:DI
10: pc={(r123:CC==0)?L15:pc}
REG_DEAD r123:CC
to:
10: {pc={(r123:DI&0x6==0)?L15:pc};clobber scratch;clobber %0:CC;}
then split2 will split i
On 2021/12/7 20:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> + class loop *coldest_loop = coldest_outermost_loop[loop->num];
>>> + if (loop_depth (coldest_loop) < loop_depth (outermost_loop))
>>> +{
>>> + class loop *hotter_loop = hotter_than_inner_loop[loop->num];
>>> + if (!hotter_loop
>>> +
In tree-ssa-loop-split.c, split_loop and split_loop_on_cond does two
kind of split. split_loop only works for single loop and insert edge at
exit when split, while split_loop_on_cond is not limited to single loop
and insert edge at latch when split. Both split behavior should consider
loop count a
r12-4526 cancelled jump thread path rotates loop. It exposes a issue in
profile-estimate when predict_extra_loop_exits, outer loop's exit edge
is marked as inner loop's extra loop exit and set with incorrect
prediction, then a hot inner loop will become cold loop finally through
optimizations, this
gcc/ChangeLog:
* loop-invariant.c (find_invariants_bb): Check profile count
before motion.
(find_invariants_body): Add argument.
---
gcc/loop-invariant.c | 10 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/loop-invariant.c b/gcc/loop-invarian
This patchset is a recollect of previously sent patches. Thanks
Richard that The "Don't move cold code out of loop by checking bb count"
is approved[1], but there are still 3 prerequesite patches to supplement
or avoid regression.
1) Patch [1/3] is the RTL part of not hoisting LIM code out of col
On 2021/12/6 13:09, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/1 18:09, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 4:08 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/11/4 21:00, Richard Biener wrote:
>
Hi Honza,
Gentle ping for this :), thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585289.html
On 2021/11/24 13:03, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 2021/11/23 17:50, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 6:52 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>>>
On 2021/12/1 18:09, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 4:08 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/11/4 21:00, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 2:29 PM Xionghu Luo wrote:
> + while (outmost_loop != loop)
> +{
> + if (bb_colder_tha
Gentle ping and is this patch still suitable for stage 3? Thanks.
[PATCH v7 2/2] Don't move cold code out of loop by checking bb count
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583911.html
On 2021/11/10 11:08, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2
Gentle ping, thanks.
[PATCH v3] Fix loop split incorrect count and probability
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583626.html
On 2021/11/8 14:09, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/10/27 15:44, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021,
On 2021/11/23 17:50, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 6:52 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>>
>>> r12-4526 cancelled jump thread path rotates loop. It exposes a issue in
>>> profile-estimate when predict_extra_loop_exits, outer loop's exit edge
>>> is marked as inner loop's extra loop exit and
On 2021/11/23 13:51, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> r12-4526 cancelled jump thread path rotates loop. It exposes a issue in
> profile-estimate when predict_extra_loop_exits, outer loop's exit edge
> is marked as inner loop's extra loop exit and set with incorrect
> prediction, then a hot inner loop will b
r12-4526 cancelled jump thread path rotates loop. It exposes a issue in
profile-estimate when predict_extra_loop_exits, outer loop's exit edge
is marked as inner loop's extra loop exit and set with incorrect
prediction, then a hot inner loop will become cold loop finally through
optimizations, this
On 2021/11/4 21:00, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 2:29 PM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> + while (outmost_loop != loop)
>>> +{
>>> + if (bb_colder_than_loop_preheader (loop_preheader_edge
>>> (outmost_loop)->src,
>>> +loop_prehead
On 2021/10/27 15:44, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-ssa-loop-split.c (split_loop): Fix incorrect probability.
(do_split_loop_on_cond): Likewise.
---
gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c | 25 --
On 2021/11/5 08:58, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:50 PM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>> [PATCH] rs6000: Fix incorrect fusion constraint [PR102991]
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * config/rs6000/fusion.md: Regenerate.
>> * config/rs6000/genfusion.pl: Fix incorrect clobber
On 2021/11/4 09:59, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 9:46 PM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/11/3 23:13, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> Did you manually change fusion.md or did you regenerate it after
>>> fixing genfusion.pl?
>>>
>>> If you regenerated it, the ChangeLog entry should b
On 2021/11/3 23:13, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Did you manually change fusion.md or did you regenerate it after
> fixing genfusion.pl?
>
> If you regenerated it, the ChangeLog entry should be "Regenerated" and
> the "Fix incorrect clobber constraint." should refer to the
> genfusion.pl change.
>
On 2021/10/29 19:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'm talking about the can_sm_ref_p call, in that context 'loop' will
> be the outermost loop of
> interest, and we are calling this for all stores in a loop. We're doing
>
> +bool
> +ref_in_loop_hot_body::operator () (mem_ref_loc *loc)
> +{
> + bas
The clobber constraint should match operand's constraint. fusion.md was
generated by genfusion.pl, but it is disabled now, update both places with
correct clobber constraint.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/fusion.md: Fix incorrect clobber constraint.
* config/rs6000/genfusion.pl:
On 2021/10/29 19:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'm talking about the can_sm_ref_p call, in that context 'loop' will
> be the outermost loop of
> interest, and we are calling this for all stores in a loop. We're doing
>
> +bool
> +ref_in_loop_hot_body::operator () (mem_ref_loc *loc)
> +{
> + bas
On 2021/10/29 19:52, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>> loop_version currently does lv_adjust_loop_entry_edge
>> before it loopifys the copy inserted on the header. This patch moves
>> the condition generation later and thus we have four pieces to help
>> unde
On 2021/10/27 21:24, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 10:51 PM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>> If the second operand of __builtin_shuffle is const vector 0, and with
>> specific mask, it can be optimized to vspltisw+xxpermdi instead of lxv.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * config/rs
On 2021/10/27 20:54, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021/9/28 20:09, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 8:29 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
Update the patch to v3, not sure whether you prefer the paste style
and continue to link the previous thread as Segher dislikes th
gcc/ChangeLog:
* cfghooks.c (cfg_hook_duplicate_loop_to_header_edge): Rename
duplicate_loop_to_header_edge to
duplicate_loop_body_to_header_edge.
(cfg_hook_duplicate_loop_body_to_header_edge): Likewise.
* cfghooks.h (struct cfg_hooks): Likewise.
(cfg
Name loop_copy is used in gcc/cfg.c already.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* cfgloopmanip.c (force_single_succ_latches): Rename
loop_version to clone_loop_to_header_edge.
(lv_adjust_loop_entry_edge): Likewise.
(loop_version): Likewise.
(clone_loop_to_header_edge): Likewis
loop_version currently does lv_adjust_loop_entry_edge
before it loopifys the copy inserted on the header. This patch moves
the condition generation later and thus we have four pieces to help
understanding of how the adjustment works:
1) duplicating the loop on the entry edge.
2) loopify the dupl
loop split condition is moved between loop1 and loop2, the split bb's
count and probability should also be duplicated instead of (100% vs INV),
secondly, the original loop1 and loop2 count need be propotional from the
original loop.
Regression tested pass, OK for master?
diff base/loop-cond-split
This patchset is an followed update from [1].
Patch 1 is expecting review comments from Honza[2];
Patch 2 refactors loop_version to remove loopify call and adjust
condition generation later than loopify;
Patch 3 and Patch 4 are function renamings to help better understanding.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.o
On 2021/10/26 21:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:29 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/10/15 16:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 5:45 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
Hi,
On 2021/9/28 20:09, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2
On 2021/10/26 21:05, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
>
>> That said, likely the profile update cannot be done uniformly
>> for all blocks of a loop?
>
> For the loop:
>
> for (i = 0; i < n; i = inc (i))
> {
> if (ga)
> ga = do_something ();
> }
>
> to:
>
> for (i = 0; i < x; i =
On 2021/10/21 18:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/10/15 13:51, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/9/23 20:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 202
If the second operand of __builtin_shuffle is const vector 0, and with
specific mask, it can be optimized to vspltisw+xxpermdi instead of lxv.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (altivec_expand_vec_perm_const): Add
patterns match and emit for VSX xxpermdi.
gcc/testsuite/Chan
Ping^3, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579637.html
On 2021/10/15 14:28, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Ping^2, thanks.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579637.html
>
>
> On 2021/10/8 09:17, Xionghu Luo via
On 2021/10/15 13:51, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/9/23 20:17, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/8/11 17:16, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021,
On 2021/10/18 12:29, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/10/15 16:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 5:45 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2021/9/28 20:09, Richard Biener wrote:
>
On 2021/10/15 16:11, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 5:45 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021/9/28 20:09, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 8:29 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
Update the patch to v3, not sure whether you prefer the paste style
and
Ping^2, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579637.html
On 2021/10/8 09:17, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Ping, thanks.
>
>
> On 2021/9/17 13:25, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>> These two patches are updated version from:
>> https://gcc.gnu.o
On 2021/9/23 20:17, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/8/11 17:16, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>>
On 2021/8/10 22:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>>>
Thanks David,
On 2021/10/13 06:51, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Hi, Xionghu
>
> What's the status of the \M and \m testcase beautification requested
> by Segher? Did you send an updated patch? Your messages ping the
> version prior to Segher's additional comments.
The pinged link already answered Se
Resend this patch. Previous discussion is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572330.html
vmrghb only accepts permute index {0, 16, 1, 17, 2, 18, 3, 19, 4, 20,
5, 21, 6, 22, 7, 23} no matter for BE or LE in ISA, similarly for vmrglb.
Remove UNSPEC_VMRGH_DIRECT/UNSPEC_VMRGL_DIREC
Hi,
On 2021/9/28 20:09, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 8:29 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>
>> Update the patch to v3, not sure whether you prefer the paste style
>> and continue to link the previous thread as Segher dislikes this...
>>
>>
>> [PATCH v3] Don't move cold code out of loop
Ping, thanks.
On 2021/9/17 13:25, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> These two patches are updated version from:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579490.html
>
> Changes:
> 1. Fix alignment error in md files.
> 2. Replace rtx_equal_p with match_dup.
> 3. Use register_operand instead
Update the patch to v3, not sure whether you prefer the paste style
and continue to link the previous thread as Segher dislikes this...
[PATCH v3] Don't move cold code out of loop by checking bb count
Changes:
1. Handle max_loop in determine_max_movement instead of
outermost_invariant_loop.
2.
On 2021/9/23 10:13, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 2021/9/22 17:14, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 3:56 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2021/8/26 19:33, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:03 AM Xionghu Luo
wrote:
Hi,
On 2021/8/6 20:15, Richard Biener
On 2021/9/22 17:14, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 3:56 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2021/8/26 19:33, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:03 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
Hi,
On 2021/8/6 20:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:05 AM Xiong Hu Luo wrote:
On 2021/8/11 17:16, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2021/8/10 22:47, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
Thanks,
On 2021/8/6 19:46, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
loop split condition is moved be
ns?
Other than that question / suggestion, this patch is okay. Please
coordinate with Bill and his builtin patches.
OK.
Thanks, David
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:50 AM Xionghu Luo wrote:
Ping^3, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570333.html
On 2021/9/6 08:52,
The vsel instruction is a bit-wise select instruction. Using an
IF_THEN_ELSE to express it in RTL is wrong and leads to wrong code
being generated in the combine pass. Per element selection is a
subset of per bit-wise selection,with the patch the pattern is
written using bit operations. But ther
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
