> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:22 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> This may have caused:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81216
>
> --
> H.J.
>
Nope. Reverting my patch does not solve the problem, which appears to begin
with r249643.
Bill
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's version 2 of the patch to fix the missed SLSR PHI opportunities,
> addressing Richard's comments. I've repeated regstrap and SPEC testing
> on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, again showing the patch as neutral
> with respect to
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's version 2 of the patch to fix the missed SLSR PHI opportunities,
> addressing Richard's comments. I've repeated regstrap and SPEC testing
> on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, again showing the patch as neutral
> with respect to
Hi,
Here's version 2 of the patch to fix the missed SLSR PHI opportunities,
addressing Richard's comments. I've repeated regstrap and SPEC testing
on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, again showing the patch as neutral
with respect to performance. Is this ok for trunk?
Thanks for the review!
Bill
On Jun 20, 2017, at 6:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> PR71815 identifies a situation where SLSR misses opportunities for
>> PHI candidates when code hoisting is enabled (which is now on by
>> default). The basic problem is th
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PR71815 identifies a situation where SLSR misses opportunities for
> PHI candidates when code hoisting is enabled (which is now on by
> default). The basic problem is that SLSR currently uses an overly
> simple test for profitability
Hi,
PR71815 identifies a situation where SLSR misses opportunities for
PHI candidates when code hoisting is enabled (which is now on by
default). The basic problem is that SLSR currently uses an overly
simple test for profitability of the transformation. The algorithm
currently requires that th
