On 12/28/2018 11:13 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On 12/21/18 9:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Peter, also if you are interesting to do RA work, there is another problem
which is to implement sub-register level conflict calculations in LRA.
Currently, IRA has a simple subregister level conflict ca
On 12/21/18 9:24 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Peter, also if you are interesting to do RA work, there is another problem
> which is to implement sub-register level conflict calculations in LRA.
> Currently, IRA has a simple subregister level conflict calculation (see
> allocno objects) and in a ca
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 06:35:14PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:25 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 04:55:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM Vladimir Makarov
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 12/20/2018 06:14 PM
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:35 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:25 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 04:55:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM Vladimir Makarov
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 12/20/2018 06:14 PM, Peter
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:25 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 04:55:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM Vladimir Makarov
> > wrote:
> > > On 12/20/2018 06:14 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > > On 12/20/18 4:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > >> O
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 04:55:28PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > On 12/20/2018 06:14 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > On 12/20/18 4:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >> On 12/20/18 2:30 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >I am just saying that you ne
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/20/2018 06:14 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On 12/20/18 4:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 12/20/18 2:30 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >>> For stage1, I'd like to fix that conflict wart if I can. I have also
> >>> wondered about addi
On 12/20/2018 06:14 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On 12/20/18 4:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/20/18 2:30 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
For stage1, I'd like to fix that conflict wart if I can. I have also
wondered about adding a copy coalesce phase just before we enter RA,
which would ensure the copies
On 12/20/18 4:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/20/18 2:30 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> For stage1, I'd like to fix that conflict wart if I can. I have also
>> wondered about adding a copy coalesce phase just before we enter RA,
>> which would ensure the copies are removed, instead of hoping RA assign
On 12/20/18 2:30 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 12/20/18 2:26 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:07:41PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
It's not a terrible workaround, no. It looks like it will make some asm
once again fail though? If argument registers are forwarde
On 12/20/18 2:26 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:07:41PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> It's not a terrible workaround, no. It looks like it will make some asm
>>> once again fail though? If argument registers are forwarded to in the asm.
>>
>> The combiner change look
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:07:41PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > It's not a terrible workaround, no. It looks like it will make some asm
> > once again fail though? If argument registers are forwarded to in the asm.
>
> The combiner change looks like a big hammer for such a corner case though.
> It's not a terrible workaround, no. It looks like it will make some asm
> once again fail though? If argument registers are forwarded to in the asm.
The combiner change looks like a big hammer for such a corner case though.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:23:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:43 PM Eric Botcazou
> > wrote:
> > > this is a regression introduced on the SPARC by the somewhat controversial
> > > combiner change for
> Does this solve most of the pessimizations?
Yes, it does.
> Please add a testcase if it doesn't solve existing FAILs.
It fixes gcc.target/sparc/overflow-2.c.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:43 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > this is a regression introduced on the SPARC by the somewhat controversial
> > combiner change for hard registers: the compiler can no longer apply the
> > leaf
> > register
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:43 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is a regression introduced on the SPARC by the somewhat controversial
> combiner change for hard registers: the compiler can no longer apply the leaf
> registers optimization to a small function so a register window is now used
Hi,
this is a regression introduced on the SPARC by the somewhat controversial
combiner change for hard registers: the compiler can no longer apply the leaf
registers optimization to a small function so a register window is now used.
The combiner change might be an overall win, but my understan
18 matches
Mail list logo
