My assumption here was that if I gave you a few pointers, you would try
to debug the problem yourself. If you want someone else to debug it for
you, then you need to give much better info. See for instance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
which gives info on how to properly report a bug. I have t
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 22:28 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thursday 24 February 2005 21:59, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
> > > Actually I am trying to extend PRE implementation so that it performs
> > > strength reduction as well. it requires multip
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, James E Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:55, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
You are write here that if some expr doesn't get into hash table, it will
^^
right.
-tarun
not get optimized.
That was an assumption on my part. You shouldn't take it as the literal
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Feb 24, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
Actually I am trying to extend PRE implementation so that it performs
strength reduction as well. it requires multiplication expressions to get
into hash table.
Why do you want to do that?
Strength reducti
On Thursday 24 February 2005 21:59, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
> > Actually I am trying to extend PRE implementation so that it performs
> > strength reduction as well. it requires multiplication expressions to
> > get into hash table.
>
> Why do you wa
On Thursday 24 February 2005 21:16, James E Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 03:15, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 2005 11:13 AM, Tarun Kawatra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does GCSE look into stuff in PARALLELs at all? From gcse.c:
>
> Shrug. The code in hash_scan_set seems to be d
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:55, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
> You are write here that if some expr doesn't get into hash table, it will
> not get optimized.
That was an assumption on my part. You shouldn't take it as the literal
truth. I'm not an expert on all implementation details of the gcse.c
pass.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, James E Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 03:15, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Feb 24, 2005 11:13 AM, Tarun Kawatra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does GCSE look into stuff in PARALLELs at all? From gcse.c:
Shrug. The code in hash_scan_set seems to be doing something
reasonable.
Th
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 15:59 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
>
> > Actually I am trying to extend PRE implementation so that it performs
> > strength reduction as well. it requires multiplication expressions to
> > get into hash table.
>
> Why do y
On Feb 24, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
Actually I am trying to extend PRE implementation so that it performs
strength reduction as well. it requires multiplication expressions to
get into hash table.
Why do you want to do that?
Strength reduction is done already in loop.c.
Thanks,
Andr
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, James E Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 03:15, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Feb 24, 2005 11:13 AM, Tarun Kawatra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does GCSE look into stuff in PARALLELs at all? From gcse.c:
Shrug. The code in hash_scan_set seems to be doing something
reasonable.
Th
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 03:15, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2005 11:13 AM, Tarun Kawatra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does GCSE look into stuff in PARALLELs at all? From gcse.c:
Shrug. The code in hash_scan_set seems to be doing something
reasonable.
The problem I saw wasn't with finding e
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 09:20, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, James E Wilson wrote:
> > While looking at this, I noticed can_assign_to_reg_p does something silly.
> ^^^
> I could not find this function anywhere in gc
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 02:13, Tarun Kawatra wrote:
> If that is the reason, then even plus expression (shown below) should not
> be subjected to PRE as it also clobbers a hard register(CC). But it is being
> subjected to PRE. Multiplication expression while it looks same does not
> get even in hash
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, James E Wilson wrote:
Tarun Kawatra wrote:
During expression hash table construction in gcse pass(gcc vercion 3.4.1),
expressions like a*b does not get included into the expression hash table.
Such expressions occur in PARALLEL along with clobbers.
You didn't mention the targ
On Feb 24, 2005 11:13 AM, Tarun Kawatra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Such expressions occur in PARALLEL along with clobbers.
> >
> > You didn't mention the target, or exactly what the mult looks like.
>
> Target is i386 and the mult instruction looks like the following in RTL
>
> (insn 22 21 2
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, James E Wilson wrote:
Tarun Kawatra wrote:
During expression hash table construction in gcse pass(gcc vercion 3.4.1),
expressions like a*b does not get included into the expression hash table.
Such expressions occur in PARALLEL along with clobbers.
You didn't mention the targ
Tarun Kawatra wrote:
During expression hash table construction in gcse pass(gcc vercion
3.4.1), expressions like a*b does not get included into the expression
hash table. Such expressions occur in PARALLEL along with clobbers.
You didn't mention the target, or exactly what the mult looks like.
Ho
18 matches
Mail list logo
