On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Andreas Krebbel
wrote:
> On 03/18/2015 12:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2015 02:17 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
Just to have some numbers I did run a -j1 GCC bootstrap twice with and
On 03/18/2015 12:04 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 03/17/2015 02:17 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to have some numbers I did run a -j1 GCC bootstrap twice with and
>>> without the patch on x86_64.
>>> Best results for both are:
>>>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/17/2015 02:17 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just to have some numbers I did run a -j1 GCC bootstrap twice with and
>> without the patch on x86_64.
>> Best results for both are:
>>
>> clean: 21459s
>> patched: 21314s
>>
>> There rathe
On 03/17/2015 02:17 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
Just to have some numbers I did run a -j1 GCC bootstrap twice with and without
the patch on x86_64.
Best results for both are:
clean: 21459s
patched: 21314s
There rather appears to be a trend towards reduced compile time perhaps due to
the red
On 03/10/2015 11:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andreas Krebbel
> wrote:
>> On 03/10/2015 10:12 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
* gcc/ifcvt.c (if_convert):
>>>
>>> ...yes...?
>>
>> Damn.
On 03/10/2015 11:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Is this fixing a regression in some way?
Not really. The optimization supposed to fold the bswap in that case is not
that old:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01378.html
The underlying problem however is probably visible in one wa
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andreas Krebbel
wrote:
> On 03/10/2015 10:12 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>>
>>> * gcc/ifcvt.c (if_convert):
>>>
>>
>> ...yes...?
>
> Damn. mklog is still not able to do the complete job for me ;)
>
On 03/10/2015 10:12 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>
>> * gcc/ifcvt.c (if_convert):
>>
>
> ...yes...?
Damn. mklog is still not able to do the complete job for me ;)
> Tiny nail, huge hammer. This triggers a full re-scan of all insns
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>
> * gcc/ifcvt.c (if_convert):
>
...yes...?
> diff --git a/gcc/ifcvt.c b/gcc/ifcvt.c
> index a3e3e5c..d2040af 100644
> --- a/gcc/ifcvt.c
> +++ b/gcc/ifcvt.c
> @@ -4626,6 +4626,13 @@ if_convert (bool after_combine)
>
Hi,
the combine pass sometimes gets confused by already dead compares
which are remains of the if conversion pass. This e.g. happens in
gcc.dg/builtin-bswap-7.c. Compiling with -march=z196 the if blocks
are modified to make use of load on condition. This duplicates the
compare insn but unfortuna
10 matches
Mail list logo