Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On F

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener >>> wrote: On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi,

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

Please ignore this one, I will further refine it. Sorry for disturbing! Thanks, bin On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard B

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 b

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

Bin.Cheng wrote: > do we have some compilation time benchmarks for GCC? I'm using the llvm test-suite to see compile time differences: $ git clone http://llvm.org/git/test-suite.git /path/to/test-suite $ /path/to/test-suite/configure --without-llvmsrc --without-llvmobj --with-externals=/path/to/

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the ivopt >>> issue still exists. >>> >>> Current candi

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the ivopt >>> issue still exists. >>> >>> Current candid

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the ivopt >> issue still exists. >> >> Current candidate selecting algorithm tends to select fewer candidates give

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the ivopt > issue still exists. > > Current candidate selecting algorithm tends to select fewer candidates given > below reasons: > 1) to better handle loops with many indu

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 12/05/14 05:15, Bin Cheng wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the >> ivopt >> issue still exists. >> >> Current candidate selecting algorithm tends to select fewer candidates >> given >> below

Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.

On 12/05/14 05:15, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the ivopt issue still exists. Current candidate selecting algorithm tends to select fewer candidates given below reasons: 1) to better handle loops with many induction uses but the best