Hello Ayal,
First of all, thanks for your feedback. Now to your questions:
On 31.03.2012 3:20, Ayal Zaks wrote:
Roman, Andrey,
Sorry for the delayed response.
It would indeed be good to have SMS apply to more loop patterns, still
within the realm of *countable* loops. SMS was originally desi
Roman, Andrey,
Sorry for the delayed response.
It would indeed be good to have SMS apply to more loop patterns, still
within the realm of *countable* loops. SMS was originally designed to
handle doloops, with a specific pattern controlling the loop, easily
identified and separable from the loop's
Hello,
I'd like to ping again those SMS patches once we're back to Stage 1.
Ayal, maybe it would remove some burden for you if you'd review the general
SMS functionality of those patches, and we'd ask RTL folks to look at the
pieces related to RTL pattern matching and generation?
Yours,
Andr
Ping.
Ayal, please review this patch and these three patches too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00505.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00506.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01800.html
--
Roman Zhuykov
zhr...@ispras.ru
Ping.
Ayal, could you review this patch and these two patches too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00505.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00506.html
Happy holidays.
2011/12/7 Roman Zhuykov :
> Apologies for the messed up previous e-mail.
>
> 2011/10/12 Ayal Zaks :
>>
Apologies for the messed up previous e-mail.
2011/10/12 Ayal Zaks :
>>> - the last jump instruction should look like: pc=(regF!=0)?label:pc, regF
>>> is
>
> you'd probably want to bump to next instruction if falling through,
> e.g., pc=(regF!=0)?label:pc+4
>
It is considered that program counte
2011/10/12 Ayal Zaks :>>> - the last jump
instruction should look like: pc=(regF!=0)?label:pc, regF is>> you'd
probably want to bump to next instruction if falling through,> e.g.,
pc=(regF!=0)?label:pc+4>
It is considered that program counter is increased automatically
onhardware level.Otherwise w
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> 2011/7/21 :
>> This patch should be applied only after pending patches by Revital.
>
>
> Ping. New version is attached, it suits current trunk without
> additional patches.
Thanks for the ping.
> Also this related patch needs approval:
> h
2011/7/26 Richard Sandiford :
> Note that on ARM, the comparison and loop counter addition can happen
> as a single parallel:
Certainly, I notice such "subs" ARM instructions. IMHO, this pattern seems to
appear rarely in real loops. For loops without doloop_end pattern we have to
make the follow
zhr...@ispras.ru writes:
> The next three describe the control part of new supported loops.
> - the last jump instruction should look like: pc=(regF!=0)?label:pc, regF is
> flag register;
> - the last instruction which sets regF should be: regF=COMPARE(regC,X), where
> X
> is a constant, or m
Hello Roman,
> This patch should be applied only after pending patches by Revital. This
patch
> significantly enhances the existing implementation of the SMS. Patch
adds
> support of scheduling loops without doloop pattern. The loop should meet
the
> following requirements.
Thanks for the patch
This patch should be applied only after pending patches by Revital. This patch
significantly enhances the existing implementation of the SMS. Patch adds
support of scheduling loops without doloop pattern. The loop should meet the
following requirements.
First three are the same as for loop with
12 matches
Mail list logo
