On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:20:18AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > How about "Var(flag_cunroll_grow_size) EnabledBy(funroll-loops ||
> > funroll-all-loops || fpeel-loops)" Or flag_cunroll_allow_grow_size?
> >
> > And then using this flags as:
> > unsigned int val = tree_unroll_loops_completely (
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:36 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:58:13AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Yes, cunroll does not h
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:36 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:58:13AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
> >> wrote:
> >> > Yes, cunroll does not have its own option, and that is a pr
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:58:13AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>> > Yes, cunroll does not have its own option, and that is a problem. But
>> > that is easy to fix! Either with an option, or ju
Hi!
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:58:13AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > Yes, cunroll does not have its own option, and that is a problem. But
> > that is easy to fix! Either with an option, or just with params (the
> > option wouldn'
Richard Biener writes:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 02:39:54PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Segher Boessenkool
>> > wrote:
>> > > > The split above allows the "bug" to be fixed (even on the branc
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:44 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 02:39:54PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > > The split above allows the "bug" to be fixed (even on the branch)
> > > > without introducing eve
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 02:39:54PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > > The split above allows the "bug" to be fixed (even on the branch)
> > > without introducing even more target specialities.
> >
> > So does any split. Or I don't see
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:22:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:37 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > I think this is the
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:22:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:37 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
> > > things at once.
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:37 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
> > things at once. Try to fix the powerpc regression with the extra
> > flag_rtl_unroll_loops,
Jiufu Guo writes:
> Jan Hubicka writes:
>
>>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >> I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
>>> >> things at once. Try to fix the powerpc regression with the ex
Jan Hubicka writes:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
>> >> things at once. Try to fix the powerpc regression with the extra
>> >> flag_rtl_unroll_lo
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
> >> things at once. Try to fix the powerpc regression with the extra
> >> flag_rtl_unroll_loops, that could be backporte
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
>> things at once. Try to fix the powerpc regression with the extra
>> flag_rtl_unroll_loops, that could be backported. Then you
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:30:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're doing too many
> things at once. Try to fix the powerpc regression with the extra
> flag_rtl_unroll_loops, that could be backported. Then you can
> independently see whether e
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:08 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at
> >> -O2.
> >> At the same time, the GIMPLE cu
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at -O2.
>> At the same time, the GIMPLE cunroll is also enabled, while it is not only
>> for
>> simple loops. This p
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at
>> >> -O2.
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:27 AM Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at
> >> -O2.
> >> At the same time, the GIMPLE cu
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at -O2.
>> At the same time, the GIMPLE cunroll is also enabled, while it is not only
>> for
>> simple loops. This p
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at -O2.
> At the same time, the GIMPLE cunroll is also enabled, while it is not only for
> simple loops. This patch introduces a hook to check if a lo
Hi,
In r10-4525, and r10-4161, loop unroller was enabled for simply loops at -O2.
At the same time, the GIMPLE cunroll is also enabled, while it is not only for
simple loops. This patch introduces a hook to check if a loop is suitable to
unroll completely. The hook can be used to check if a loop
23 matches
Mail list logo
