On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed Bin
> Cheng as the IVopts maintainer.
>
> Please join me in congratulating Bin on his new role.
>
> Bin, please update your entry in the MAINTAINERS file. I also believe you
Do
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed
Bin Cheng as the IVopts maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Bin on his new role.
Bin, please update your entry in the MAINTAINERS file. I also believe
you have some patches to self-approve :-)
Thanks,
Jeff
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 03:16 -0700, Stephen Clarke wrote:
> > why (and where) did ivopts decide to move the post-increments above the
> > usages in the first loop?
>
> It looks rather like the transformation described next to
> tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c/adjust_iv_update_pos.
Yes, that looks like th
> why (and where) did ivopts decide to move the post-increments above the
> usages in the first loop?
It looks rather like the transformation described next to
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c/adjust_iv_update_pos.
2013/6/18 Steve Ellcey :
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:36 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry for not having an answer. I got curious, because just yesterday I
>> was looking at this one
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
>> and thought that this is related, although it doesn't se
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:36 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
> Sorry for not having an answer. I got curious, because just yesterday I
> was looking at this one
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
> and thought that this is related, although it doesn't seem to.
> I've tried the two func
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 10:07 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have a loop induction variable question involving post increment.
> If I have this loop:
>
> [...]
> My question is is: why (and where) did ivopts decide to move the
> post-increments above the usages in the first
I have a loop induction variable question involving post increment.
If I have this loop:
void *memcpy_word_ptr(int * __restrict d, int * __restrict s, unsigned int n )
{
int i;
for(i=0; i:
# d_22 = PHI
# s_23 = PHI
# i_24 = PHI
d_10 = d_22 + 4;
s_11 = s_23 + 4;
_12 = *s_23
Hi Sebastian,
On 05/26/2011 07:20 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
I see. Would it be possible to strip mine the reduction loop that you say
not handled yet, and then translate to opencl the partial sums?
We believe it would be quite difficult. This problem can be divided into three
sub-problems:
1.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:58, Alexey Kravets wrote:
> On 05/24/2011 10:09 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>
>> One change that I introduced sometime in February is that some reductions
>> are not translated to a zero dim array to make the dependence test work
>> on some of the interchange testcases. W
On 05/24/2011 10:09 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
One change that I introduced sometime in February is that some reductions
are not translated to a zero dim array to make the dependence test work
on some of the interchange testcases. With this change, are we going to
also create privatized copies for
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:09, Alexey Kravets wrote:
> There are two places in graphite-opencl where we use strcmp technique.
> The first one is the detection of privatizable variables
> (opencl_private_var_name_p) and it can be eliminated by marking all zero
> dimensional arrays as private (see p
On 05/19/2011 06:52 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
I could loop at the internal name
of the variable, and check if it starts with graphite_IV.
I think this is a *very* bad idea, and unfortunately the graphite-opencl
code uses this strcmp technique to detect reductions, and that's why
the graphite-ope
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:27, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
>> What is your definition of induction variable?
>
> The one which is used by graphite.
Ok, then you can match against the scalar evolution of a variable:
the evolution of your variable should be of the form "{a, +, 1
On Thu, 19 May 2011 09:52:11 -0500
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 09:21, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
[...]
> > How should I find the induction variable?
>
> What is your definition of induction variable?
The one which is used by graphite.
> My defin
>
> > How should I find the induction variable?
>
> What is your definition of induction variable?
> My definitions are:
> - every variable defined in a loop is an induction variable,
> - an induction variable has a phi node with one of the
> arguments defined in the loop.
ccsummit.org/2010/view_abstract.php?content_key=15
> paperat GCC Summit 2010).
>
> That meltopengpu_detect pass is in the MELT branch file
> gcc/melt/xtramelt-opengpu.melt
>
> It is currently installed before the ivcanon pass.
>
> How should I find the induction variable?
the MELT branch file
gcc/melt/xtramelt-opengpu.melt
It is currently installed before the ivcanon pass.
How should I find the induction variable? I could loop at the internal name
of the variable, and check if it starts with graphite_IV. But is there a
better way?
(I want to code a MELT extension
, %ecx
jb .L6
Once this problem is solved (well, determined how it could be solved),
we go on to the next, the extraneous induction variable %ecx.
There are two ways to deal with it:
1. Eliminate it with respect to the other induction variable that
counts in the same direction
after the register allocation?
Thanks very much for your reading. Any help is really appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Moving-loop-induction-variable-calculation-to-the-head-of-loop.-tp26542157p26542157.html
Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at
n or FRE prior to loop
> optimizations
> and creates a new induction variable.
>
>
> Does this imply we try and not copy propagate or FRE potential induction
> variables? Or is this simply a missed case in IVOpts?
IIRC, at some point maybe year or two ago Sebastian worked on
o ;
>
> :
> return;
>
> }
>
> IVOpts cannot identify start_26, start_4 and ivtmp_32_7 to be copies.
> The root cause is that expression 'i + start' is identified as a common
> expression between the test in the header and the index operation in t
etmp.17_23, index: D.1286_24, step: 4] = 0;
i_12 = i_20 + 1;
if (i_12 != D.1290_30)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
goto ;
:
return;
}
The correct single induction variable as been identified here. This is
not
a loop header copying problem either. If we disable loop header copying,
we
Hello,
> I am a M.E.Computer science student and doing project on induction variable
> optimization.
>
> Therefore i am reading the file tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c of gcc-4.0.2 to know
> about what have implemented in that.
>
> Is there any other way to know about what have i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/11/2006 03:34:27:
> Respected Sir
>
> I am a M.E.Computer science student and doing project on induction
variable
> optimization.
>
> Therefore i am reading the file tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c of gcc-4.0.2 to
know
> about what have implemented in t
Respected Sir
I am a M.E.Computer science student and doing project on induction variable
optimization.
Therefore i am reading the file tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c of gcc-4.0.2 to know
about what have implemented in that.
Is there any other way to know about what have implemented yet and in
gcc
Hi,
Thanks for your replies, scalar evolution is what I was looking for!
--
Jay L.T. Cornwall, http://www.esuna.co.uk/~jay/
PhD Student
Imperial College London
Hello,
> I'm looking for an induction variable analysis which will operate at the
> GIMPLE level. So far, I've found...
>
> loop-iv.c -- RTL induction variable analysis
> tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c -- GIMPLE induction variable analysis
no, tree-level induction variable a
Jay L. T. Cornwall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for an induction variable analysis which will operate at the
> GIMPLE level. So far, I've found...
>
> loop-iv.c -- RTL induction variable analysis
> tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c -- GIMPLE induction variable analysis
&
Hi,
I'm looking for an induction variable analysis which will operate at the
GIMPLE level. So far, I've found...
loop-iv.c -- RTL induction variable analysis
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c -- GIMPLE induction variable analysis
The latter appears to be the right choice but nearly
Hi,
Can someone tell me how to obtain the following:
1) Given a rtx, find out if it is an induction variable.
2) For an induction variable, find all the loop nest
3) For each loopnest, find the corresponding upper and lower bounds
(compile-time)
4) For an induction variables, find the increment
31 matches
Mail list logo
