> On 09/29/11 17:36, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 09/29/11 09:26, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >> ISTR cse.c has some support for this.
> > cprop.c -- see references to implicit_sets.
>
> cse too: record_jump_equiv.
Interesting. Are the two approaches subtly different
or do they apply precisely the same pred
> insn 882 : cc <- compare (r684, 0)
> jump_insn 883 : if (cc != 0) goto insn 46
> insn 49: r291 <- r684
> ..
> insn 46
>
> cc contains the result of subtracting 0 from r684; control flow goes to
> insn_49 only if (cc == 0), which implies (r684 == 0).
> Then at insn_49 we
. There are related changes to how basic blocks are
split that may needs changing when using switch clustering. The changes
to stmt.c are the same as before. The additional changes are to cfgrtl.c
and cfgbuild.c.
Cheers,
Rahul
switch_case_clusters.patch
Description: switch_case_clusters.patch
> I will be looking at the patch Rahul posted and will try to see if I
> can improve on it.
See attached patch (again) that Paulo is referring to. Sending to GCC
failed due to email client issues.
I have another patch for http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-08/msg00413.html
Which I will se
reak;
default:
j = j * k;
break;
}
return j;
}
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(seq)/sizeof(seq[0]); i++)
result = test_it (1, i);
return 0;
}
Cheers,
Rahul
-Original Message-
From: Rahul Kharche
Sent: 22 April 2010 11:24
To:
Thanks Edmar! I will try and work your patch into our GCC 4.4.1
port and get some results.
Cheers,
Rahul
rce hints much like
__builtin_expect which would assign a probability to a case range
in a switch construct. I will have to tweak the case expansion
phase to implement a similar transformation to the one you mentioned
earlier.
Cheers,
Rahul
h
cases because we cannot always gather profile information on all code
paths through a program.
Cheers,
Rahul
example. Or specializing foo () on frequent cases of
val.
In this case inlining and VRP would have automatically done what I am
suggesting. Inlining however is not attempted because foo () is
estimated to be large.
Many Thanks,
Rahul
ase?
-Original Message-
From: Jan Hubicka [mailto:hubi...@ucw.cz]
Sent: 14 April 2010 00:44
To: Rahul Kharche
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; sdkteam-gnu
Subject: Re: branch probabilities on multiway branches
> Hi All,
>
> The following bit of code in predict.c implies branch probabilities
> are
es, bb->index);
return;
}
Many Thanks,
Rahul
Hi Jeff,
Many thanks for the pointers. I will make the changes and attach the
patch to the bugzilla soon.
Cheers,
Rahul
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: 09 February 2010 00:45
To: Rahul Kharche
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; sdkteam-gnu
Subject: Re: Failure to
all RTL optimisations and cause needless
reloads).
Fixing the combiner to convert masking AND operations to ZERO_EXTRACT
fixes this issue without any obvious regressions. I'm adding the
patch here against GCC 4.4.1 for any comments and/or suggestions.
Cheers,
Rahul
--- combine.c 2009-04-01
Hi Richard,
We would like to hang on to 4.4 for a little while. I was hoping I could
grab only the alias analysis improvements from the trunk. Do you suspect
this would be troublesome?
Cheers,
Rahul
-Original Message-
From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30
sert_into_preds_of_block in tree-ssa-pre.c
I can see the value numbers for expression bchH_2(D)->gf.primPoly
available through bb 3 and through bb 2 are different.
2. Is this because alias analysis cannot determine bchH_2(D)->gf
has a unique target?
Many Thanks,
Rahul
tential induction
variables? Or is this simply a missed case in IVOpts?
Rahul
Hi,
Its fixed for me. I was missing get_ref_tag () in copy_ref_info () when
I patched against 4.5.
Thanks again,
Rahul
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:bernds_...@t-online.de]
Sent: 22 May 2009 16:56
To: Rahul Kharche
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; sdkteam-all
Subject: Re: [4.5
4.4.1, GCC 4.4 branch. Will I need dependent changes from the 4.5
branch?
Many Thanks,
Rahul
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:bernds_...@t-online.de]
Sent: 22 May 2009 16:56
To: Rahul Kharche
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; sdkteam-all
Subject: Re: [4.5] Find more autoinc addressing
r[1];
:
# i_19 = PHI
# prephitmp.14_18 = PHI
# ivtmp.42_21 = PHI
__builtin_loop_iteration (1);
printf (&"arr[%d] == var : %d\n"[0], i_19, prephitmp.14_18);
i_6 = i_19 + 1;
if (i_6 != 10)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
pretmp.13_1 ={v} MEM[index: ivtmp.42_21];
> - If I patch in this code, actually I get the same results I did
> before where the constants are propagated. It seems that in 4.3.2,
> every part of the compiler is trying to do that.
There are at least two forward propagation passes, one before and
another after GCSE. I haven't tried to tackle
s a potential replacement.
Before the actual replacing operation, the cost of temporary replacement
is determined using rtx_cost. A cost cannot be reliably formed if we
come
across jump INSNs because they may alter jumps or successors. The
default
replacement is used in this case.
Rahul
Index: gcs
this problem.
Rahul Vijay Kharche
tion, even the 'progname.c.*.combine file' is
*not* getting generated for '-fdump-rtl-all / -fdump-rtl-combine'
options.
Please tell me whether the combining of related instructions, by the
combiner, will be taking place only when optimization is enabled? if
that is the case, is there any way to make gcc recognize the 'MAC"
pattern for -O0 optimisation?
Paul
Regards,
Rahul
MULT patterns.
I noticed the following point in gcc-internals doc: "Instruction
combination pass attempts to combine groups of two or three
instructions that are related by
data flow into single instructions".
Please tell me whether this is feasible in gcc v4.1.1 or not?
Am i missing any other changes or additions?
Regards,
Rahul
Hello,
Kindly answer my below query on: "modifications required on
'dbxout.c', while adding a new data type in gcc under C"
On 05 Dec 2006 07:05:33 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"RAHUL V R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am wor
ks in advance
Regards,
Rahul
seperate "-Wno" options are not required because
"-W" by default has "-Wno" property. This property works only if value
of flag is either 0 or 1.
But the second syntax would change the value to an integer value
starti
3
command line options whereas the number of command line options in first
approach would be equal to the number of rules.
Kindly suggest me which approach is appropriate and also your comments
on the same in view of getting it approved by FSF.
Regards,
Rahul Phalak
KPIT Cummins InfoSystems Ltd.
Pune,
28 matches
Mail list logo
