On Tue, 22 May 2012, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 22/05/2012 18:26, Dimitrios Apostolou ha scritto:
You are right, and I noticed that if we reverse (actually put straight)
the loop for the PARALLEL defs inside df_defs_record() then the speedup
stands for both x86 and ppc64.
The following patch wa
Il 22/05/2012 18:26, Dimitrios Apostolou ha scritto:
>
> You are right, and I noticed that if we reverse (actually put straight)
> the loop for the PARALLEL defs inside df_defs_record() then the speedup
> stands for both x86 and ppc64.
>
> The following patch was tested on x86, do you think it is
On Tue, 22 May 2012, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/05/2012 19:49, Dimitrios Apostolou ha scritto:
Thanks for reviewing, in the meantime I'll try to figure out why this
patch doesn't offer any speed-up on ppc64 (doesn't break anything
though), so expect a followup by tomorrow.
Perhaps you hit thi
Il 20/05/2012 20:50, Dimitrios Apostolou ha scritto:
> +static void
> +df_find_hard_reg_defs_1 (rtx *loc, basic_block bb,
> + int flags, HARD_REG_SET *defs)
BB and FLAGS are not needed here, I am changing this and rebootstrapping.
Paolo
Il 21/05/2012 19:49, Dimitrios Apostolou ha scritto:
>
> Thanks for reviewing, in the meantime I'll try to figure out why this
> patch doesn't offer any speed-up on ppc64 (doesn't break anything
> though), so expect a followup by tomorrow.
Perhaps you hit this?
else if (GET_CODE (XEXP (not
Hi Paolo,
On Mon, 21 May 2012, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 20/05/2012 20:50, Dimitrios Apostolou ha scritto:
Paolo: I couldn't find a single test-case where the mw_reg_pool was
heavily used so I reduced its size. You think it's OK for all archs?
Makes sense, we can see if something breaks. I'
Il 20/05/2012 20:50, Dimitrios Apostolou ha scritto:
>
>
> Paolo: I couldn't find a single test-case where the mw_reg_pool was
> heavily used so I reduced its size. You think it's OK for all archs?
>
Makes sense, we can see if something breaks. I'll commit the patch
tomorrow after a re-review.
