Hi Robin,
On 4/8/25 21:56, Robin Dapp wrote:
Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
>>> Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen
>>> to change
>>> something else on your local tree still?
Ye
On 4/8/25 16:32, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen to change
something else on your local tree still?
Yeah I had some debug stuff lying around. In particular
On 4/8/25 16:32, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
>> I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
> Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen to
> change
> something else on your local tree still?
>> Yeah I had some debug s
On 4/8/25 13:47, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 4/8/25 12:27, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
> I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen to
change
something else on your local tree s
On 4/8/25 12:27, Robin Dapp wrote:
Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
>>> Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen to
>>> change
>>> something else on your local tree still?
Yeah I had some debug stuff lying aro
Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen to change
something else on your local tree still?
On top, I'm now seeing a ton of vsetvl test failures vs just the one I
reported... No ide
Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen to change
something else on your local tree still?
On top, I'm now seeing a ton of vsetvl test failures vs just the one I
reported... No ide
Yay ! It does work. Awesome.
I've uploaded the further reduced test to PR/119533
Hmm, I'm seeing the same ICE as before with my patch. Did you happen to change
something else on your local tree still?
--
Regards
Robin
On 4/8/25 02:12, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> However we still see lift up using those blocks - the earliest set computed
>> contained the supposedly elided bbs.
>>
>> Try lift up 0.
>>
>> earliest:
>> Edge(bb 16 -> bb 17): n_bits = 3, set = {1 }
>>
>> Try lift up 1.
>>
>>
Hi Vineet,
However we still see lift up using those blocks - the earliest set computed
contained the supposedly elided bbs.
Try lift up 0.
earliest:
Edge(bb 16 -> bb 17): n_bits = 3, set = {1 }
Try lift up 1.
earliest:
Edge(bb 15 -> bb
On 3/31/25 21:54, Jeff Law wrote:
> And if that's the case then you can't simply skip an abnormal edge. You
> have to do something sensible.
>
> That "something sensible" has traditionally been to ensure there is
> never a need propagated to an edge since you can't insert on an abnormal
> criti
On 4/1/25 17:44, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 4/1/25 12:15 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>> On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It h
On 3/29/25 17:58, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 3/29/25 6:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> changes since v2
>> - dump log sanfu
>>
>> ---
>> vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
>> It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
>> Currently it asserts/aborts on en
On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
Currently it asserts/aborts on encountering EDGE_ABNORMAL.
When enabling go frontend with
On 4/1/25 10:46 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 4/1/25 20:15, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional lo
On 4/1/25 20:15, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
Curr
On 4/1/25 12:15 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges
On 3/31/25 23:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 3/30/25 01:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> changes since v2
>> - dump log sanfu
>>
>> ---
>> vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
>> It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
>> Currently it asserts/abo
On 3/31/25 1:33 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 3/29/25 17:58, Jeff Law wrote:
On 3/29/25 6:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
Current
On 3/31/25 3:43 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
But what state is in play that caused it to want to insert something?
That's what needs to be understood here. I don't see anything in bb64
that requires vsetvl to be in any particular state. So why did vsetvl
insertion think that it needed to insert
On 3/31/25 12:39, Jeff Law wrote:
* config/riscv/riscv-vsetvl.cc (pre_vsetvl::emit_vsetvl): skip
EDGE_ABNORMAL.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* go.dg/pr119533-riscv.go: New test.
>>> So presumably it wants to insert on the EH edge for a reason. Just
>>> skipping t
On 3/29/25 6:49 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
Currently it asserts/aborts on encountering EDGE_ABNORMAL.
When enabling go frontend
changes since v2
- dump log sanfu
---
vsetvl phase4 uses LCM guided info to insert VSETVL insns.
It has an additional loop to insert missing vsetvls on certain edges.
Currently it asserts/aborts on encountering EDGE_ABNORMAL.
When enabling go frontend with V enabled, libgo build hits the assert.
23 matches
Mail list logo
