On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>> Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is
>>> not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to c
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is
>> not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to compensate for the
>> possible live range lengthening introduced
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is
> not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to compensate for the
> possible live range lengthening introduced by reassociation.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ric
Thanks for the comments. As David wrote, the intent of the patch is
not to do a general purpose scheduling, but to compensate for the
possible live range lengthening introduced by reassociation.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Easwaran Ra
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> NB, the whole reassoc code needs a re-write to avoid the excessive
>>> stmt modifications when it does nothing. So I'd v
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> NB, the whole reassoc code needs a re-write to avoid the excessive
>> stmt modifications when it does nothing. So I'd very much rather avoid
>> adding anything to reassoc until t
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> NB, the whole reassoc code needs a re-write to avoid the excessive
> stmt modifications when it does nothing. So I'd very much rather avoid
> adding anything to reassoc until that rewrite happened.
IMHO it's fair to Easwaran to hold up a p
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>> Hi,
>> In the expression reassociation pass, statements might get moved
>> downwards to ensure that dependences are not violated after
>> reassociation. This can increase the live r
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Hi,
> In the expression reassociation pass, statements might get moved
> downwards to ensure that dependences are not violated after
> reassociation. This can increase the live range and, in a tight loop,
> result in spills. This patch sim
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> Hi,
> In the expression reassociation pass, statements might get moved
> downwards to ensure that dependences are not violated after
> reassociation. This can increase the live range and, in a tight loop,
> result in spills. This patch sim
Hi,
In the expression reassociation pass, statements might get moved
downwards to ensure that dependences are not violated after
reassociation. This can increase the live range and, in a tight loop,
result in spills. This patch simply does a code motion of those
statements involved in reassociati
11 matches
Mail list logo
