On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Teresa Johnson
>>> wrote:
Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in patch text
>>> looks funky again, let me know if you want the pa
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in patch text
>> looks funky again, let me know if you want the patch as an attachment
>> instead.
>>
>> I addressed all of Ste
A nitpick: the dragon book was first published 36 years ago... (!)
-miles
--
“There are moments, Jeeves, when one asks oneself, ‘Do trousers matter?’”
“The mood will pass, sir.” [P.G. Wodehouse, "The Code Of The Woosters"]
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Thanks. I wasn't aware of that wiki page. I'll be reading it today :-)
>
> The .odp attachment is actually a bit more informative, you should
> take a look at that too, if you have the time.
>
> Comments welcome, so I can include that in th
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Thanks. I wasn't aware of that wiki page. I'll be reading it today :-)
The .odp attachment is actually a bit more informative, you should
take a look at that too, if you have the time.
Comments welcome, so I can include that in the new .texi ve
On 05/22/2013 11:20 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
The problem here is two things:
1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
Abs
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in patch text
> looks funky again, let me know if you want the patch as an attachment
> instead.
>
> I addressed all of Steven's comments, except for the suggestion to use
> gcc_assert
>
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problem here is two things:
>>
>> 1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
>> cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
>
> Absolutely true. I'd actually love
On 05/22/2013 04:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
The problem here is two things:
1. Many GCC developers still don't fully grasp the difference between
cfglayout mode and the older cfgrtl mode.
Absolutely true. I'd actually love it if someone (you?) could write up
the basics of cfglayout mode.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>>> But to be honest, I still don't really understand why we emit a
>>> barrier at all if we're in cfglayout mode. They're i
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> But to be honest, I still don't really understand why we emit a
>> barrier at all if we're in cfglayout mode. They're ignored, they're
>> going to be overlooked if someone looks for
Revised patch included below. The spacing of my pasted in patch text
looks funky again, let me know if you want the patch as an attachment
instead.
I addressed all of Steven's comments, except for the suggestion to use
gcc_assert
instead of error() in verify_hot_cold_block_grouping() to keep this
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
>> * ifcvt.c (find_if_case_1): Replace BB_COPY_PARTITION with assert
>> as this is now done by redirect_edge_and_branch_force.
>> * function.c (thread_prologue
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> * ifcvt.c (find_if_case_1): Replace BB_COPY_PARTITION with assert
> as this is now done by redirect_edge_and_branch_force.
> * function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Insert new bb after
> barriers, a
Patch 2 of 3 split out from the patch I sent last week that fixes problems with
-freorder-blocks-and-partition, with changes/fixes discussed in that thread,
along with some additional verification improvements.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/threads.html#00388 for context.
This por
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> /* If we are partitioning hot/cold basic blocks, we don't want to
> mess up unconditional or indirect jumps that cross between hot
> and cold sections.
>
> Basic block partitioning may result in some jumps that appear to
>
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >
>> > BTW2: We badly need to figure out a way to create test cases for FDO... :-(
>>
>> Yes. I had tried testing awhile back with the gcc regression tests and
>> enabling -freorder-blocks-and-partition, but none of the issues I was
>> having
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Here there was a block that happened to be laid out at the very start
>> of the cold section (it was jumped to from elsewhere, not reached via
>> fall through from its layout predece
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Once -freorder-blocks-and-partition actually works, we should enable it by
> > default with -fprofile-generate (I recall I was trying to do that once, but
> > I am not sure what was outcome back then and why it did not happen).
> > That shou
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Once -freorder-blocks-and-partition actually works, we should enable it by
> default with -fprofile-generate (I recall I was trying to do that once, but
> I am not sure what was outcome back then and why it did not happen).
> That should get it
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Here there was a block that happened to be laid out at the very start
> of the cold section (it was jumped to from elsewhere, not reached via
> fall through from its layout predecessor). Thus it was preceded by a
> switch section note, which
> >
> > BTW2: We badly need to figure out a way to create test cases for FDO... :-(
>
> Yes. I had tried testing awhile back with the gcc regression tests and
> enabling -freorder-blocks-and-partition, but none of the issues I was
> having with larger benchmarks fired. I think there just aren't en
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> The main issue I had here, and why I made this change, is that we go
>> in and out of cfglayout mode several times after bb partitioning and
>> then out_of_cfglayout. The problem was
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> There shouldn't be any forwarder blocks in cfg layout mode. What did
>> you need this for?
>>
>> BTW2: We badly need to figure out a way to create test cases for FDO... :-(
>
> We have gcc.dg/tree-prof and friends. What do you need to add?
> There shouldn't be any forwarder blocks in cfg layout mode. What did
> you need this for?
>
> BTW2: We badly need to figure out a way to create test cases for FDO... :-(
We have gcc.dg/tree-prof and friends. What do you need to add?
Honza
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> The main issue I had here, and why I made this change, is that we go
> in and out of cfglayout mode several times after bb partitioning and
> then out_of_cfglayout. The problem was that when we subsequently went
> in and out of cfglayout mode
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On 2013-05-08 01:13 , Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> -static void
>>> +void
>>> emit_barrier_after_bb (basic_block bb)
>>> {
>>>rtx barrier = emit_barrier_after (BB_END (bb));
>>> -
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On 05/07/13 23:13, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> >--
>> >Revised patch that fixes failures encountered when enabling
>> >-freorder-blocks-and-partition, including the failure reported in PR 53743.
>> >
>> >This includes new veri
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2013-05-08 01:13 , Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Somehow Rietveld didn't upload the patch properly. I've attached the
>> patch to this email instead. Here is the description:
>
>
> Rietveld has turned out to be far less useful that I had hope
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> This patch mixes up things badly from the point of
>> what-depends-on-what, the whole approach looks wrong to me.
>
>
> Do you mean the 'source file dependency' or 'logical depend
> On 05/07/13 23:13, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> >--
> >Revised patch that fixes failures encountered when enabling
> >-freorder-blocks-and-partition, including the failure reported in PR 53743.
> >
> >This includes new verification code to ensure no cold blocks dominate hot
> >bloc
On 05/07/13 23:13, Teresa Johnson wrote:
--
Revised patch that fixes failures encountered when enabling
-freorder-blocks-and-partition, including the failure reported in PR 53743.
This includes new verification code to ensure no cold blocks dominate hot
blocks contributed by
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On 2013-05-08 01:13 , Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> -static void
>>> +void
>>> emit_barrier_after_bb (basic_block bb)
>>> {
>>>rtx barrier = emit_barrier_after (BB_END (bb));
>>> -
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2013-05-08 01:13 , Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> -static void
>> +void
>> emit_barrier_after_bb (basic_block bb)
>> {
>>rtx barrier = emit_barrier_after (BB_END (bb));
>> - BB_FOOTER (bb) = unlink_insn_chain (barrier, barrier);
>> + if (
On 2013-05-08 01:13 , Teresa Johnson wrote:
Somehow Rietveld didn't upload the patch properly. I've attached the
patch to this email instead. Here is the description:
Rietveld has turned out to be far less useful that I had hoped. If you
are running ubuntu precise, the upload script is having
binyG3NHBftCR.bin
Description: Binary data
Thanks for the confirmation that the -g issue is orthogonal. I did
start to try to address it but got pulled away by some other things
for awhile. I'll see if I can take another stab at it.
In the meantime, could one of the global maintainers take a look at
the patch? I don't want it to get too st
Hello,
Sorry for the long delay (ref http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/199397/)
On 6 December 2012 20:26, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>>
>> I have updated my trunk checkout, and I can confirm that eval.c now
>> compiles with your pat
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:19:55PM -0800, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Are you sure you have all my changes applied? I applied the 4 patches
> attached to PR55121 into my trunk checkout that has my fixes, and to a
> pristine trunk checkout. I configured and built both for
> --target=arm-none-linux-gnuea
Are you sure you have all my changes applied? I applied the 4 patches
attached to PR55121 into my trunk checkout that has my fixes, and to a
pristine trunk checkout. I configured and built both for
--target=arm-none-linux-gnueabi, and built using your options, .i file
and gcda file. I can reproduce
Hi,
I have tested your patch on Spec2000 on ARM, and I can still see
several failures caused by:
"error: fallthru edge crosses section boundary", including the case
described in PR55121.
On 26 November 2012 16:55, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Ping.
> Teresa
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Teres
Ping.
Teresa
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Revised patch that fixes failures encountered when enabling
> -freorder-blocks-and-partition, including the failure reported in PR 53743.
>
> This includes new verification code to ensure no cold blocks dominate hot
> blocks c
Revised patch that fixes failures encountered when enabling
-freorder-blocks-and-partition, including the failure reported in PR 53743.
This includes new verification code to ensure no cold blocks dominate hot
blocks contributed by Steven Bosscher.
I attempted to make the handling of partition up
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Index: bb-reorder.c
>> ===
>> --- bb-reorder.c(revision 192692)
>> +++ bb-reorder.c(working copy)
>>
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Steven Bosscher
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Sure, I will give this a try after your verification patc
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> I'll do some testing of the fix below, but do you have any comments on
> the correctness or the potential issue I raised (see my note just
> below the patch)?
Sorry, I don't know the pro- and epilogue threading code well enough
to be of any
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Index: bb-reorder.c
>> ===
>> --- bb-reorder.c(revision 192692)
>> +++ bb-reorder.c(working copy)
>>
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>> Sure, I will give this a try after your verification patch tests
>>> complete. Does this mean that the patch you poste
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Sure, I will give this a try after your verification patch tests
>> complete. Does this mean that the patch you posted above to
>> force_nonfallthru_and_redirect is no longer needed
> I would like to work on debugging this, but it's hard without test cases...
Maybe the files I attached to my PR55121 could help you in this respect?
Your "sanity checking" patching does complain with these input files.
Christophe.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Sure, I will give this a try after your verification patch tests
> complete. Does this mean that the patch you posted above to
> force_nonfallthru_and_redirect is no longer needed either? I'll see if
> I can avoid the need for some of my fix
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Hello Teresa,
>>
>> Could you try this patch for me also? It moves bbpart outside the part
>> of the passes pipeline that works in cfglayout mode.
>
> where's the "unsend" button i
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Hello Teresa,
>>
>> Could you try this patch for me also? It moves bbpart outside the part
>> of the passes pipeline that works in cfglayout mode.
>
> where's the "unsend" button i
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello Teresa,
>
> Could you try this patch for me also? It moves bbpart outside the part
> of the passes pipeline that works in cfglayout mode.
where's the "unsend" button if you need it...
So, to complete the mail...
Could you try this
Hello Teresa,
Could you try this patch for me also? It moves bbpart outside the part
of the passes pipeline that works in cfglayout mode.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Index: bb-reorder.c
>> ===
>> --- bb-reorder.c(revision 192692)
>> +++ bb-reorder.c(working copy)
>> @
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Index: bb-reorder.c
> ===
> --- bb-reorder.c(revision 192692)
> +++ bb-reorder.c(working copy)
> @@ -2188,6 +2188,8 @@ insert_section_boundary_note (void)
>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
> On 30 October 2012 05:20, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Index: cfgrtl.c
>> ===
>> --- cfgrtl.c(revision 192692)
>> +++ cfgrtl.c(working copy)
>> @@ -912,7 +912,8 @@ rtl_
On 30 October 2012 05:20, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Index: cfgrtl.c
> ===
> --- cfgrtl.c(revision 192692)
> +++ cfgrtl.c(working copy)
> @@ -912,7 +912,8 @@ rtl_can_merge_blocks (basic_block a, basic_block b
> partition bo
This patch fixes three different failures I encountered while trying to use
-freorder-blocks-and-partition, including the failure reported in PR 53743.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Teresa
2012-10-29 Teresa Johnson
PR optimization/53743
61 matches
Mail list logo
