Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-06-29 Thread Jeff Law
On 06/26/2017 10:19 PM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Thanks for the review and your approval for final patch. > Sorry, It was a long weekend and hence could not revert to your > comments earlier. > >>> You need a ChangeLog entry, but I think that's it. Can you >>> please repost wit

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-06-26 Thread Hurugalawadi, Naveen
Hi Jeff, Thanks for the review and your approval for final patch. Sorry, It was a long weekend and hence could not revert to your comments earlier. >> You need a ChangeLog entry, but I think that's it. Can you >> please repost with a ChangeLog entry for final approval? Please find the final pat

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-06-23 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/10/2017 10:46 PM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: > Hi, > >>> Doesn't this avoid calling the target hook in cases where it used to >>> call it before? > Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. > >>> Consider a conditional jump inside a parallel that is not a single set. > Please find attached the mod

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-05-10 Thread Hurugalawadi, Naveen
Hi, >> Doesn't this avoid calling the target hook in cases where it used to >> call it before? Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. >> Consider a conditional jump inside a parallel that is not a single set. Please find attached the modified patch that handles the case mentioned. Please review the

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-04-27 Thread Jeff Law
On 04/26/2017 06:50 AM, Hurugalawadi, Naveen wrote: Hi Wilco, Thanks for reviewing the patch. The return false seems incorrect - it means a core can either have FUSE_CMP_BRANCH or FUSE_ALU_BRANCH but not both. Thanks for pointing out about the confusion. Modified the code as required. Bootst

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-04-26 Thread Hurugalawadi, Naveen
Hi Wilco, >> I suggest you check the logic and follow the existing patterns in >> aarch_macro_fusion_pair_p. Done. Bootstrapped and Regression tested on AArch64 and X86_64. Please review the patch and let us know if its okay? Thanks, Naveen diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/c

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-04-26 Thread Hurugalawadi, Naveen
Hi Wilco, Thanks for reviewing the patch. >> The return false seems incorrect - it means a core can either have >> FUSE_CMP_BRANCH or FUSE_ALU_BRANCH but not both. Thanks for pointing out about the confusion. Modified the code as required. Bootstrapped and Regression tested on AArch64 and X86_6

Re: [PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-04-25 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
Hi Naveen, > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01368.html This looks good to me - I have just one comment: --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c @@ -13972,6 +13972,15 @@ aarch_macro_fusion_pair_p (rtx_insn *prev, rtx_insn *curr) { enum at

[PING][PATCH] Move the check for any_condjump_p from sched-deps to target macros

2017-04-25 Thread Hurugalawadi, Naveen
Hi, Please consider this as a personal reminder to review the patch at following link and let me know your comments on the same. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg01368.html Thanks, Naveen