Jeff Law wrote:
>> Btw reminds me a little bit of
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417
> I wouldn't expect 28417
> to move forward without something other than Tege and Denys pushing on it.
Hmm that doesn't look optimal. You can typically do a multiply with the magic
constant
On 09/16/2017 03:39 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On 15 September 2017 18:50:26 CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 09/13/2017 03:20 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>> Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/06/2017 03:55 AM, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
> On 08/30/2017 01:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>
On 15 September 2017 18:50:26 CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/13/2017 03:20 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 09/06/2017 03:55 AM, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
On 08/30/2017 01:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>rdivtmp = 1 / (y*C);
>tem = x *rdivtmp;
>tem2= z
On 09/13/2017 03:20 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 09/06/2017 03:55 AM, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
>>> On 08/30/2017 01:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
rdivtmp = 1 / (y*C);
tem = x *rdivtmp;
tem2= z * rdivtmp;
instead of
rdivtmp = 1/y;
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 09/06/2017 03:55 AM, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
>> > On 08/30/2017 01:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
rdivtmp = 1 / (y*C);
tem = x *rdivtmp;
tem2= z * rdivtmp;
instead of
rdivtmp
Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 03:55 AM, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
> > On 08/30/2017 01:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> rdivtmp = 1 / (y*C);
>>> tem = x *rdivtmp;
>>> tem2= z * rdivtmp;
>>>
>>> instead of
>>>
>>> rdivtmp = 1/y;
>>> tem = x * 1/C * rdivtmp;
>>> tem2 = z * 1/C * rdivtmp;
On 09/06/2017 03:55 AM, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
> On 08/30/2017 01:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Jackson Woodruff
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/29/2017 01:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jackson Woodruff
wrote:
>
> Hi
On 08/30/2017 01:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Jackson Woodruff
wrote:
On 08/29/2017 01:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jackson Woodruff
wrote:
Hi all,
Apologies again to those CC'ed, who (again) received this twice.
Joseph:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Jackson Woodruff
wrote:
> On 08/29/2017 01:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jackson Woodruff
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Apologies again to those CC'ed, who (again) received this twice.
>>>
>>> Joseph: Yes you are correct.
On 08/29/2017 01:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jackson Woodruff
wrote:
Hi all,
Apologies again to those CC'ed, who (again) received this twice.
Joseph: Yes you are correct. I misread the original thread, now fixed.
Richard: I've moved the optimizations out of
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jackson Woodruff
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies again to those CC'ed, who (again) received this twice.
>
> Joseph: Yes you are correct. I misread the original thread, now fixed.
>
> Richard: I've moved the optimizations out of fold-const.c. One has been
> replicate
Hi all,
Apologies again to those CC'ed, who (again) received this twice.
Joseph: Yes you are correct. I misread the original thread, now fixed.
Richard: I've moved the optimizations out of fold-const.c. One has been
replicated in match.pd, and the other (x / C +- y / C -> (x +- y) / C)
I've d
On 08/17/2017 03:55 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Wilco Dijkstra
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener wrote:
> We also change the association of
>
> x / (y * C) -> (x / C) / y
>
> If C is a constant.
Why's that pr
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Without global analysis it seems best to move constants/negates to the
> > toplevel if they can't be trivially removed in a subexpression. Eg. -x
> > / (a * b * -c).
>
> Sure. So both patterns are canonicalization which is fine for match.pd.
> T
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Wilco Dijkstra
>> wrote:
>> > Richard Biener wrote:
> We also change the association of
>
> x / (y * C) -> (x / C) / y
>
> If C is a constant.
>>
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Wilco Dijkstra
> wrote:
> > Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > We also change the association of
>>> >
>>> > x / (y * C) -> (x / C) / y
>>> >
>>> > If C is a constant.
>>>
>>> Why's that profitable?
>>
>> It enables (x * C1) / (y * C2) -> (x
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Biener wrote:
>> > We also change the association of
>> >
>> > x / (y * C) -> (x / C) / y
>> >
>> > If C is a constant.
>>
>> Why's that profitable?
>
> It enables (x * C1) / (y * C2) -> (x * C1/C2) / y for example.
> Also 1/y i
Richard Biener wrote:
> > We also change the association of
> >
> > x / (y * C) -> (x / C) / y
> >
> > If C is a constant.
>
> Why's that profitable?
It enables (x * C1) / (y * C2) -> (x * C1/C2) / y for example.
Also 1/y is now available to the reciprocal optimization, see
https://gcc.gnu.o
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Jackson Woodruff
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The patch implements the division opitmizations discussed in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71026 .
>
> The implemented change differs slightly from the
> proposed one in that we re-associate:
>
> C / x comp
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
> > We also change:
> >
> > x / (- y) -> (-x) / y
> >
> > Which requires -fno-trapping-math.
I don't see why that requires -fno-trapping-math. The exceptions should
be identical from both variants, as should the result, as far as defined
by C or
And have now attached that patch.
Jackson
On 08/10/2017 03:09 PM, Jackson Woodruff wrote:
Hi all,
The patch implements the division opitmizations discussed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71026 .
The implemented change differs slightly from the
proposed one in that we re-asso
Hi all,
The patch implements the division opitmizations discussed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71026 .
The implemented change differs slightly from the
proposed one in that we re-associate:
C / x comparison 0.0 -> x comparison' 0.0
Where C is any constant and comparison'
22 matches
Mail list logo
