On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 10:47 +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/05/2005 18:17:45:
>
> > Yes, it looks quite reasonable. Please go ahead with the full testing
> > cycle and consider the patch pre-approved once complete.
> >
> I have changed the p
Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/05/2005 18:17:45:
> Yes, it looks quite reasonable. Please go ahead with the full testing
> cycle and consider the patch pre-approved once complete.
>
I have changed the patch according to some feedbacks that I have got -- the
main idea didn't ch
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:37:50AM +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
> I want to add the below example as a regression test; the difference
> between the success and failure is the position of a load operation. Is
> there a possibility to check this using the scan-assembler?
No.
r~
I want to add the below example as a regression test; the difference
between the success and failure is the position of a load operation. Is
there a possibility to check this using the scan-assembler?
Mostafa Hagog wrote on 09/05/2005 17:45:24:
>
>
>
>
> It appears that GCSE considers "read o
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/05/2005 18:09:10:
> > It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered,
which
> > is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from
CSE
> > and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency.
>
> My wild gu
Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/05/2005 19:35:34:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:45:24PM +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
> > EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (blocks_with_calls, 0, bb_index, bi)
> > {
> > ! if (! MEM_READONLY_P (x))
>
> Looks like you should p
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:45:24PM +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
> EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (blocks_with_calls, 0, bb_index, bi)
> {
> ! if (! MEM_READONLY_P (x))
Looks like you should push this check here:
case MEM:
if (!MEM_READONLY_P (x))
It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered, which
is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from CSE
and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency.
My wild guess is that this was not possible when MEM_READONLY_P was
RTX_UNCHANGING_P, and now
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 17:45 +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
>
>
>
> It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered, which
> is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from CSE
> and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency. Here is a patch that
> d
It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered, which
is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from CSE
and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency. Here is a patch that
does so. This patch makes gcse eliminate redundant loads after stores
10 matches
Mail list logo
