> 2011-12-15 Enkovich Ilya
>
> PR target/50038
> * implicit-zee.c: Delete.
> * ree.c: New file.
> * Makefile.in: Replace implicit-zee.c with ree.c.
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Set
> flag_ree for 32 bit platform.
> * common.opt
> Here is a patch wich introduces new pass 'ree' based on pass
> 'implicit_zee' as was discussed above.
Thanks.
> 2011-11-22 Enkovich Ilya
>
> PR target/50038
> * implicit-zee.c: Delete.
> * ree.c: New file.
> * Makefile.in: Replace implicit-zee.c with ree.c.
> *
Ping
2011/11/22 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2011/11/11 Eric Botcazou :
>>> I have already signed copyright agreement with the FSF. Will I need>> the
>>> separate one for this particular commit?>> No, if your contributions are
>>> already covered by a copyright agreement with the> FSF, nothing more needs
Eric,
I will follow up while Ilya is on vacation.
I can see only one patch along the dicussion so I will use it, making
changes to follow phase renaming and documentation?
I am covered by FSF agreement too, on the same Intel's list as Ilya.
regards,
Sergos
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Eric
> I have already signed copyright agreement with the FSF. Will I need
> the separate one for this particular commit?
No, if your contributions are already covered by a copyright agreement with the
FSF, nothing more needs to be done.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hello Eric,
2011/11/11 Eric Botcazou :
>> Great! I'll be back with patch covering all non functional changes.
>> Will it be OK to have everything in one patch (including current
>> functional changes) or I should split it?
>
> Let's also rename the file while we are at it. I'd suggest Redundant
> Great! I'll be back with patch covering all non functional changes.
> Will it be OK to have everything in one patch (including current
> functional changes) or I should split it?
Let's also rename the file while we are at it. I'd suggest Redundant Extension
Elimination for the name of the pass
Hello Eric,
Thanks for review!
2011/11/10 Eric Botcazou :
>> So, what about the patch? I think since we already have zee patch it
>> would be great to use it as more general optimization. I tested it on
>> EEMBC 2.0 on Atom and it showed 1% performance gain in geomean on 32
>> bit which is really
> So, what about the patch? I think since we already have zee patch it
> would be great to use it as more general optimization. I tested it on
> EEMBC 2.0 on Atom and it showed 1% performance gain in geomean on 32
> bit which is really good for such simple optimization. For OOO archs
> patch is not
> Initial aim of the pass was to remove zero extentions redundant due to
> implicit zero extention in x64. But implementation actually uses
> generic approach and seems like a mini-combiner. Pass may combine two
> zero extends or combine zero extend with a constant as a special case
> but in other
Hello guys,
So, what about the patch? I think since we already have zee patch it
would be great to use it as more general optimization. I tested it on
EEMBC 2.0 on Atom and it showed 1% performance gain in geomean on 32
bit which is really good for such simple optimization. For OOO archs
patch is
2011/11/6 Richard Guenther :
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> 2011/11/5 Eric Botcazou :
Here is a patch which fixes redundant zero extensions problem. Issue
is resolved by expanding implicit_zee pass functionality to cover zero
and sign extends
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2011/11/5 Eric Botcazou :
>>> Here is a patch which fixes redundant zero extensions problem. Issue
>>> is resolved by expanding implicit_zee pass functionality to cover zero
>>> and sign extends of different modes. Could please som
Hello,
2011/11/5 Eric Botcazou :
>> Here is a patch which fixes redundant zero extensions problem. Issue
>> is resolved by expanding implicit_zee pass functionality to cover zero
>> and sign extends of different modes. Could please someone review it?
>
> Could you explain the undelying idea? The
> Here is a patch which fixes redundant zero extensions problem. Issue
> is resolved by expanding implicit_zee pass functionality to cover zero
> and sign extends of different modes. Could please someone review it?
Could you explain the undelying idea? The current strategy of implicit-zee.c
is e
Hi,
Here is a patch which fixes redundant zero extensions problem. Issue
is resolved by expanding implicit_zee pass functionality to cover zero
and sign extends of different modes. Could please someone review it?
Bootstrapped and checked on linux-x86_64.
Thanks,
Ilya
---
2011-11-01 Enkovich Ily
16 matches
Mail list logo
