[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/06/2005 04:29:17:
> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > > Hi, all
> > >
> > > I've taken a look on modulo-sched.c recently, and found
> > > that both new_cycles and orig_cycles are imprecise. The
> > >
On Jun 02, 2005 03:09 PM, Mostafa Hagog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As to the subtraction for IA-64; I expect that the gen_sub2_insn handles
> the subtraction correctly and generate the required RTL to do the
> subtraction according to the machine description.
But that expectation is incorrect.
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/06/2005 17:35:20:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
>
> > 3) The counted loop register 'ar.lc' of IA-64 can not be
> > updated directly. Another temporary register is needed
> > to evaluate the value of the actural loop coun
Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > > Hi, all
> > >
> > > I've taken a look on modulo-sched.c recently, and
> found
> > > that both new_cycles and orig_cycles are
> imprecise. The
> > > reason is that
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > Hi, all
> >
> > I've taken a look on modulo-sched.c recently, and
found
> > that both new_cycles and orig_cycles are
imprecise. The
> > reason is that kernel_number_of_cycles does not
take the
> > dat
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I've taken a look on modulo-sched.c recently, and found
> that both new_cycles and orig_cycles are imprecise. The
> reason is that kernel_number_of_cycles does not take the
> data dependences of insns into account as the DFA
> schedu
Hi, all
I've taken a look on modulo-sched.c recently, and found
that both new_cycles and orig_cycles are imprecise. The
reason is that kernel_number_of_cycles does not take the
data dependences of insns into account as the DFA
scheduler does in haifa-sched.c.
On IA-64, three improvements are ne
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 22/04/2005 09:39:09:
>
> Thanks!
> For the record, this refers to a patch I sent to Mostafa and Canqun to
> do what Mostafa suggested last month to make SMS work for ia64, see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02848.html.
I have teste
On Friday 22 April 2005 04:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thursday 21 April 2005 17:37, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
> > > The other thing is to analyze this problem more
>
> deeply but I don't have
>
> > > IA64.
> >
> > ...and I don't care enough about it. Canqun?
>
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thursday 21 April 2005 17:37, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
> > The other thing is to analyze this problem more
deeply but I don't have
> > IA64.
> ...and I don't care enough about it. Canqun?
>
> Gr.
> Steven
>
>
Ok, I'll try this.
Canqun Yang
Creative Compil
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/03/2005 16:55:52:
> On Mar 31, 2005 03:56 PM, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
> > modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
> > on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled.
On Mar 31, 2005 03:56 PM, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
> modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
> on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled. On 1GHz
> Itanium-2, it costs just 3.128 seconds to execute when
> compiled
On Mar 31, 2005 03:56 PM, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
> modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
> on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled. On 1GHz
> Itanium-2, it costs just 3.128 seconds to execute when
> compiled
Hi, all
This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled. On 1GHz
Itanium-2, it costs just 3.128 seconds to execute when
compiled with "-fmodulo-shced -O3" turned on, while
5.454 seconds whithout
Hi Mark,
First of all I would like this discussion to be on the GCC mailing list; so
I am CCing the GCC mailing list (I hope this is OK with all the others).
"Davis, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/03/2005 00:23:02:
> Mostafa & Gerald,
>
...
> It was mentioned that you folks had recentl
15 matches
Mail list logo