partial CSE propagation and removes spills from Ex2. Is this
patch OK? Or maybe CSE should be fixed in a different way? Or maybe
partial substitution is OK?
Main question: Are there any plans to fix/upgrade IRA?
--Marat
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-07-30 Marat Zakirov
Hi Vladimir!
I think you are as the main IRA contributor would be appropriate person
to answer question bellow. Please confirm or refute my statement about
unsplittable register ranges in GCC IRA.
On 07/30/2014 05:38 PM, Marat Zakirov wrote:
Hi there!
My question came from bug
https
On 08/12/2014 12:20 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 12/08/14 07:49, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Marat Zakirov wrote:
Hi Vladimir!
I think you are as the main IRA contributor would be appropriate person to
answer question bellow. Please confirm or refute my
Hi folks!
During asan performance tunning we tried to use VRP and found that it is
path-insensitive and thus suboptimal. In example bellow "i" has VRP
range 0..1000 across whole program but in loop body it is just 0..999.
int a[1000];
void foo ()
{
for (int i=0;i<1000;i++)
a[i] = 0;
On 10/30/2014 02:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 02:16:04PM +0300, Yury Gribov wrote:
On 10/30/2014 01:27 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Well, VRP is not path-insensitive - it is the value-ranges we are able
to retain after removing the ASSERT_EXPRs VRP inserts.
Why can't you do
Hi all!
I found that UBSan uses vrp pass to optimize generated checks. Keeping
in mind that vrp pass is about performance not stability I found example
where UBSan may skip true positive.
Example came from spec2006 perlbench:
int ext;
int
Perl_do_sv_dump()
{
int freq[10];
int i;
On 11/11/2014 05:26 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 05:02:55PM +0300, Marat Zakirov wrote:
I found that UBSan uses vrp pass to optimize generated checks. Keeping in
mind that vrp pass is about performance not stability I
On 11/12/2014 11:45 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Yes, but as said above, VRP is only run with >-O2 and -Os.
You meant >= -O2?
--Marat
Hi all!
During my investigation I found that GCC does not performs load/store
widening (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65088). Could you
please answer is it so? And is there any plans to make it? I also would
like to know is there any need to make load/store widening exclusively
On 02/19/2015 12:25 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Marat Zakirov wrote:
Hi all!
During my investigation I found that GCC does not performs load/store
widening (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65088). Could you
please answer is it so? And is
10 matches
Mail list logo
