On 06/23/2014 09:22 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/23/14 08:32, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Btw, there is now no DCE after peephole2? Is peephole2 expected to
>> cleanup after itself?
> There were cases where we wanted to change the insns we would output to fit
> into the 4:1:1 issue model of the PPro,
On 06/23/14 08:32, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/20/2014 02:59 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
So I suggest following change of passes.def:
Index: passes.def
===
--- passes.def (Revis
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/20/2014 02:59 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> So I suggest following change of passes.def:
>>
>> Index: passes.def
>> ===
>> --- passes.def (Revision 211850)
>> +++ passes.def
On 06/20/2014 02:59 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> So I suggest following change of passes.def:
>
> Index: passes.def
> ===
> --- passes.def (Revision 211850)
> +++ passes.def (Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -384,7 +384,6 @@ along with GCC; see the fil
2014-06-20 20:14 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
> On 06/20/14 12:07, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> 2014-06-20 19:55 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
>>>
>>> On 06/20/2014 10:52 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-20 Kai Tietz
PR target/39284
* passes.def (peephole2): Add second peephole2
On 06/20/14 12:07, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-20 19:55 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
On 06/20/2014 10:52 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-20 Kai Tietz
PR target/39284
* passes.def (peephole2): Add second peephole2 pass before
split before sched2 pass.
* config/i386/i386.md (pe
2014-06-20 19:55 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
> On 06/20/2014 10:52 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2014-06-20 Kai Tietz
>>
>> PR target/39284
>> * passes.def (peephole2): Add second peephole2 pass before
>> split before sched2 pass.
>> * config/i386/i386.md (peehole2): To combine
>>
On 06/20/2014 10:52 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2014-06-20 Kai Tietz
>
> PR target/39284
> * passes.def (peephole2): Add second peephole2 pass before
> split before sched2 pass.
> * config/i386/i386.md (peehole2): To combine
> indirect jump with memory.
> (split2): Likewise.
So revert to use a second peephole2 pass before final split before sched2 pass.
Ok for apply
ChangeLog
2014-06-20 Kai Tietz
PR target/39284
* passes.def (peephole2): Add second peephole2 pass before
split before sched2 pass.
* config/i386/i386.md (peehole2): To combine
ind
2014-06-20 19:23 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson :
> On 06/20/2014 08:56 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> +(define_split
>> + [(set (match_operand:W 0 "register_operand")
>> +(match_operand:W 1 "memory_operand"))
>> + (set (pc) (match_dup 0))]
>> + "!TARGET_X32 && peep2_reg_dead_p (2, operands[0])"
On 06/20/2014 08:56 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> +(define_split
> + [(set (match_operand:W 0 "register_operand")
> +(match_operand:W 1 "memory_operand"))
> + (set (pc) (match_dup 0))]
> + "!TARGET_X32 && peep2_reg_dead_p (2, operands[0])"
> + [(set (pc) (match_dup 1))])
> +
Huh? You can't
I tested variant to use additional the split pass for memory combining
for indirect jumps. By this we don't need to add a second peephole2
pass. Other advantage of this version is that even for -O1 we do
combining.
ChangeLog
2014-06-20 Kai Tietz
PR target/39284
* config/i386/i386.md
On 06/17/14 14:35, Kai Tietz wrote:
I just did retest my testcase with recent source. I can't reproduce
this missed optimization before sched2 pass anymore. I moved second
peephole2 pass just before split_before_sched2 and everything got
caught.
Let's go with this if your idea of using a define
2014-06-17 21:26 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
> On 06/13/14 10:59, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> 2014-06-13 17:58 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
>>>
>>> On 06/13/14 09:56, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/13/2014 08:36 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> So you may have answered this already, but why can't t
On 06/13/14 10:59, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-13 17:58 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
On 06/13/14 09:56, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/13/2014 08:36 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
So you may have answered this already, but why can't this be a combiner
pattern?
Until pass_duplicate_computed_gotos, we (intention
> >My concern is that peepholes are rather fragile, so imho it is not
> >inconceivable that some target will generate wrong code when you add
> >an extra (later) peephole pass. Of course, we are in stage1.
> peephole2 is significantly robust than the original peephole pass;
> largely because pee
2014-06-13 17:58 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law :
> On 06/13/14 09:56, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> On 06/13/2014 08:36 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> So you may have answered this already, but why can't this be a combiner
>>> pattern?
>>
>>
>> Until pass_duplicate_computed_gotos, we (intentionally) have a sing
On 06/13/14 09:56, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/13/2014 08:36 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
So you may have answered this already, but why can't this be a combiner pattern?
Until pass_duplicate_computed_gotos, we (intentionally) have a single indirect
branch in the entire function. This vastly reduce
On 06/13/2014 08:36 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> So you may have answered this already, but why can't this be a combiner
> pattern?
Until pass_duplicate_computed_gotos, we (intentionally) have a single indirect
branch in the entire function. This vastly reduces the size of the CFG.
Peep2 is currently
On 06/12/14 10:21, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hello,
I updated i386.md part of the patch. Initial patch included handling
of blockage, which is obviously superflous. Additionally I merged
32-bit and 64-bit peephole2 versions by using mode-specifier W.
ChangeLog
2014-06-12 Kai Tietz
* config/i3
On 06/12/14 15:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Will that work on other targets?
Well, this is the only point I am a bit concerned too. In general I
wouldn't expect here any issues to run peephole after scheduling, as
peephole doesn't do anything a new run of ira/lra would require.
My concern
2014-06-12 23:46 GMT+02:00 David Wohlferd :
>
> On 6/12/2014 9:21 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> with addition of adding a second peephole2 pass after sched2 pass, I
>> was able to get some improvement for PR target/39284. I think by this
>> addition we can close bug as fixed.
>> Additionally addition
On 6/12/2014 9:21 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
with addition of adding a second peephole2 pass after sched2 pass, I
was able to get some improvement for PR target/39284. I think by this
addition we can close bug as fixed.
Additionally additional peephole2 pass shows better results for PR
target/51840 t
> > Will that work on other targets?
> Well, this is the only point I am a bit concerned too. In general I
> wouldn't expect here any issues to run peephole after scheduling, as
> peephole doesn't do anything a new run of ira/lra would require.
My concern is that peepholes are rather fragile, so
2014-06-12 20:52 GMT+02:00 Segher Boessenkool :
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 06:21:32PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> with addition of adding a second peephole2 pass after sched2 pass, I
>> was able to get some improvement for PR target/39284. I think by this
>> addition we can close bug as fixed.
>> Ad
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 06:21:32PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
> with addition of adding a second peephole2 pass after sched2 pass, I
> was able to get some improvement for PR target/39284. I think by this
> addition we can close bug as fixed.
> Additionally additional peephole2 pass shows better resu
Hello,
I updated i386.md part of the patch. Initial patch included handling
of blockage, which is obviously superflous. Additionally I merged
32-bit and 64-bit peephole2 versions by using mode-specifier W.
ChangeLog
2014-06-12 Kai Tietz
* config/i386/i386.md (peehole2): To combine
i
2014-06-11 11:57 GMT+02:00 Steven Bosscher :
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> this patch adds simple combining of indirect-jumps on memory-address.
>> This patch is pretty similar to sibcall-combing.
>> ChangeLog
>>
>> 2014-06-11 Kai Tietz
>>
>> * config/i386/i386.md (
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> this patch adds simple combining of indirect-jumps on memory-address.
> This patch is pretty similar to sibcall-combing.
> ChangeLog
>
> 2014-06-11 Kai Tietz
>
> * config/i386/i386.md (peehole2): To combine
> indirect jump with memory.
Hello,
this patch adds simple combining of indirect-jumps on memory-address.
This patch is pretty similar to sibcall-combing.
ChangeLog
2014-06-11 Kai Tietz
* config/i386/i386.md (peehole2): To combine
indirect jump with memory.
2014-06-11 Kai Tietz
* gcc.target/i386/indjmp-1
30 matches
Mail list logo
