On 11/7/24 10:36 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
I think it'd be better if I abstain from this. I probably disagree too
much with the current structure and the way that the code is developing.
I won't object if anyone else approves it though.
It's not that I'm happy with the current state either and
> I think it'd be better if I abstain from this. I probably disagree too
> much with the current structure and the way that the code is developing.
> I won't object if anyone else approves it though.
It's not that I'm happy with the current state either and I thought about
how to rewrite it more
"Robin Dapp" writes:
>>> If the problem is tracking liveness, wouldn't it be better to
>>> iterate over the "then" block in reverse order? We would start
>>> with the liveness set for the join block and update as we move
>>> backwards through the "then" block. This liveness set would
>>> tell us
>> If the problem is tracking liveness, wouldn't it be better to
>> iterate over the "then" block in reverse order? We would start
>> with the liveness set for the join block and update as we move
>> backwards through the "then" block. This liveness set would
>> tell us whether the current instru
I think Manolis's patches are all in, time to revisit this one?
On 6/12/24 1:54 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hmm, ok. The bit that confused me most was:
if (last_needs_comparison != -1)
{
end_sequence ();
start_sequence ();
...
}
which implied that the second at
> Hmm, ok. The bit that confused me most was:
>
> if (last_needs_comparison != -1)
> {
> end_sequence ();
> start_sequence ();
> ...
> }
>
> which implied that the second attempt was made conditionally.
> It seems like it's always used and is an inherent part of the
>
Robin Dapp writes:
>> I was looking at the code in more detail and just wanted to check.
>> We have:
>>
>> int last_needs_comparison = -1;
>>
>> bool ok = noce_convert_multiple_sets_1
>> (if_info, &need_no_cmov, &rewired_src, &targets, &temporaries,
>> &unmodified_insns, &last_needs
> I was looking at the code in more detail and just wanted to check.
> We have:
>
> int last_needs_comparison = -1;
>
> bool ok = noce_convert_multiple_sets_1
> (if_info, &need_no_cmov, &rewired_src, &targets, &temporaries,
> &unmodified_insns, &last_needs_comparison);
> if (!ok)
>
Robin Dapp writes:
> The attached v3 tracks the use of cond_earliest as you suggested
> and adds its cost in default_noce_conversion_profitable_p.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86 and p10, aarch64 still
> running. Regtested on riscv64.
>
> Regards
> Robin
>
> Before noce_find_if_block proce
The attached v3 tracks the use of cond_earliest as you suggested
and adds its cost in default_noce_conversion_profitable_p.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86 and p10, aarch64 still
running. Regtested on riscv64.
Regards
Robin
Before noce_find_if_block processes a block it sets up an if_info
st
Robin Dapp writes:
>> Is there any way we can avoid using pattern_cost here? Using it means
>> that we can make use of targetm.insn_cost for the jump but circumvent
>> it for the condition, giving a bit of a mixed metric.
>>
>> (I realise there are existing calls to pattern_cost in ifcvt.cc,
>>
> Is there any way we can avoid using pattern_cost here? Using it means
> that we can make use of targetm.insn_cost for the jump but circumvent
> it for the condition, giving a bit of a mixed metric.
>
> (I realise there are existing calls to pattern_cost in ifcvt.cc,
> but if possible I think we
Robin Dapp writes:
> Hi,
>
> before noce_find_if_block processes a block it sets up an if_info
> structure that holds the original costs. At that point the costs of
> the then/else blocks have not been added so we only care about the
> "if" cost.
>
> The code originally used BRANCH_COST for that
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:05:55PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 5/31/24 9:03 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > before noce_find_if_block processes a block it sets up an if_info
> > structure that holds the original costs. At that point the costs of
> > the then/else blocks have not been
On 5/31/24 9:03 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
Hi,
before noce_find_if_block processes a block it sets up an if_info
structure that holds the original costs. At that point the costs of
the then/else blocks have not been added so we only care about the
"if" cost.
The code originally used BRANCH_COST
Hi,
before noce_find_if_block processes a block it sets up an if_info
structure that holds the original costs. At that point the costs of
the then/else blocks have not been added so we only care about the
"if" cost.
The code originally used BRANCH_COST for that but was then changed
to COST_N_INS
16 matches
Mail list logo
