On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:57:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Note that I think we arrived at the point where the loop structure
>> has annotations that are required for correctness :/ (simduid
>> for example - if that goes away we do ..
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:57:47PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Note that I think we arrived at the point where the loop structure
> has annotations that are required for correctness :/ (simduid
> for example - if that goes away we do ...? ICE? generate
> wrong code? I don't know - Jakub shou
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/13/14 03:44, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't see that this pass should "scrog" a loop beyond repair. Btw,
>> the "proper" way of just fixing loops up (assuming that all loop
>> headers are still at their appropriate place) is to _jus
On 08/13/14 03:44, Richard Biener wrote:
I don't see that this pass should "scrog" a loop beyond repair. Btw,
the "proper" way of just fixing loops up (assuming that all loop
headers are still at their appropriate place) is to _just_ do
loops_set_state (LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP).
This pass can quite ea
On 14/08/14 19:25, Steve Ellcey wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 10:21 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/14/14 10:12, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/14/14 04:32, Richard Biener wrote:
You'll note in a separate thread Steve and I discussed this during Ca
On 08/15/14 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Steve Ellcey wrote:
I understand the desire not to add optimizations just for benchmarks but
we do know other compilers have added this optimization for coremark
(See
http://community.arm.com/groups/
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 10:21 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 08/14/14 10:12, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> >> On 08/14/14 04:32, Richa
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 10:21 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 08/14/14 10:12, David Malcolm wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> >> On 08/14/14 04:32, Richard Biener wrote:
>> You'll note in a separate thread Steve
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> I understand the desire not to add optimizations just for benchmarks but
>> we do know other compilers have added this optimization for coremark
>> (See
>> http://community.arm.com/groups/embedded/blog/2013/02/21/corema
Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I understand the desire not to add optimizations just for benchmarks but
> we do know other compilers have added this optimization for coremark
> (See
> http://community.arm.com/groups/embedded/blog/2013/02/21/coremark-and-compiler-performance)
> and the 13 people on the CC li
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 10:21 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/14/14 10:12, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 08/14/14 04:32, Richard Biener wrote:
> You'll note in a separate thread Steve and I discussed this during
> Cauldron
> and it
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 11:52 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 08/12/14 14:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On August 12, 2014 8:31:16 PM CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/12/14 11:46, Stev
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/14/14 04:32, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> You'll note in a separate thread Steve and I discussed this during Cauldron
> >> and it was at my recommendation Steve resurrected his proof of concept
> >> plugin and started beating it into shape.
>
On 08/14/14 10:12, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/14/14 04:32, Richard Biener wrote:
You'll note in a separate thread Steve and I discussed this during Cauldron
and it was at my recommendation Steve resurrected his proof of concept
plugin and start
On 08/14/14 04:32, Richard Biener wrote:
You'll note in a separate thread Steve and I discussed this during Cauldron
and it was at my recommendation Steve resurrected his proof of concept
plugin and started beating it into shape.
But do we really want a pass just to help coremark?
And that's th
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/13/14 14:55, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>
>> Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>>
>>> +/* This file implements an optimization where, when a variable is set
>>> + to a constant value and there is a path that leads from that
>>> definition
>>> + to a swit
Jeff Law wrote:
> I'm pretty sure jump threading *could* handle it, but after looking
> at the full testcase when it was posted, I'm not sure it's *wise* to
> handle this in jump threading.
Thanks for clearing my doubts.
Sebastian
On 08/13/14 14:55, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Steve Ellcey wrote:
+/* This file implements an optimization where, when a variable is set
+ to a constant value and there is a path that leads from that definition
+ to a switch statement that uses that variable as its controlling expression
+ we du
Steve Ellcey wrote:
> +/* This file implements an optimization where, when a variable is set
> + to a constant value and there is a path that leads from that definition
> + to a switch statement that uses that variable as its controlling
> expression
> + we duplicate the blocks on this path
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 08/12/14 14:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On August 12, 2014 8:31:16 PM CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/14 11:46, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> After talking to Jeff Law at t
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/12/14 14:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On August 12, 2014 8:31:16 PM CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/12/14 11:46, Steve Ellcey wrote:
After talking to Jeff Law at the GCC Cauldron I have updated my
>>>
>>> switch
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/12/14 14:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On August 12, 2014 8:31:16 PM CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/12/14 11:46, Steve Ellcey wrote:
After talking to Jeff Law at the GCC Cauldron I have updated my
>>>
>>> switch
s
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 14:40 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/12/14 14:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On August 12, 2014 8:31:16 PM CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> Try setting the header & latch fields for the loop structure to NULL,
> >> then call loops_set_state (LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP).
> >
> > But that is _n
On 08/12/14 14:23, Richard Biener wrote:
On August 12, 2014 8:31:16 PM CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/14 11:46, Steve Ellcey wrote:
After talking to Jeff Law at the GCC Cauldron I have updated my
switch
shortcut plugin pass to try and address this optimization in the
hopes of
getting it ad
On August 12, 2014 8:31:16 PM CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 08/12/14 11:46, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> After talking to Jeff Law at the GCC Cauldron I have updated my
>switch
>> shortcut plugin pass to try and address this optimization in the
>hopes of
>> getting it added to GCC as a static pass. I fixed
On 08/12/14 11:46, Steve Ellcey wrote:
After talking to Jeff Law at the GCC Cauldron I have updated my switch
shortcut plugin pass to try and address this optimization in the hopes of
getting it added to GCC as a static pass. I fixed the code to build with
the various C++ changes that have been
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:46:46AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/tree-switch-shortcut.c
> +/* This file implements an optimization where, when a variable is set
> + to a constant value and there is a path that leads from this definition
> + to a switch statement that us
After talking to Jeff Law at the GCC Cauldron I have updated my switch
shortcut plugin pass to try and address this optimization in the hopes of
getting it added to GCC as a static pass. I fixed the code to build with
the various C++ changes that have been happening in GCC but the current
version
28 matches
Mail list logo
