Hello,
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost
> > > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed
Hello,
> > The problem is, that it does not give any speedups (it is almost
> > completely compile-time neutral for compilation of preprocessed
> > gcc sources). I will check whether moving also edges to pools
> > changes anything, but so far it does not seem very promising :-(
>
> Well, the ben
Hello,
> The number of floating point ops. in loop body.
> The number of memory ops. in loop body.
> The number of operands in loop body.
> The number of implicit instructions in loop body.
> The number of unique predicates in loop body.
> The number of indirect references in loop body.
> The numb
Hello,
> I am trying to understand the usage of some functions in tree-affine.c
> file and I appreciate your help.
>
> For example; for the two memory accesses
> arr[b+8].X and arr[b+9].X, how does their affine combinations
> will look like after executing the following sequence of operation?
Hello,
> In file loop_doloop.c function doloop_condition_get makes sure that
> the condition is GE or NE
> otherwise it prevents doloop optimizations. This caused a problem for
> a loop which had NE condition without unrolling and EQ if unrolling
> was run.
actually, doloop_condition_get is not a
mewhere
else.
Zdenek
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
>
> On 6/12/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >> In file loop_doloop.c function doloop_condition_get makes sure that
> >> the condition is GE or NE
> >> otherwise
Hello,
> Of course, instead of clock(), I'd like to use a non-intrusive
> mechanism. However, my research on this topic didn't lead to anything
> but perfsuite, which doesn't work very well for me (should it?).
>
> So here are the questions
>
> - how can I actually insert the code (I need to do
Hello,
> So, I think I am still not convinced which way we want to access the RHS
> of a GS_ASSIGN.
>
> Since GS_ASSIGN can have various types of RHS, we originally had:
>
> gs_assign_unary_rhs (gs) <- Access the only operand on RHS
> gs_assign_binary_rhs1 (gs)<- Access the 1st RHS oper
anyway, you cannot submit new changes for 4.1).
Zdenek
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> On 6/12/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >> To make sure I understood you correctly, does it mean that the change
> >> (below in /*
Hello,
> By "this change" I mean just commenting out the check in
> doloop_condition_get. After applying the patch that introduced DOLOOP
> patterns for SPU (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01470.html)
> we needed this hack in order to be able to use the doloop_condition_get to
> retu
Hello,
> It doesn't seem that the number of iterations analysis from loop-iv.c deals
> with EQ closing branches.
loop-iv works just fine for EQ closing branches.
Zdenek
> One option is for sms to use
> doloop_condition_get/loop-iv analysis in their current form, and if failed
> check (on our ow
ed form here. */
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> /* Return nonzero if the loop specified by LOOP is suitable for
>the use of special low-overhead looping instructions. DESC
>describes the number of iterations of the loop. */
> Index: modulo-sched.c
> =====
Hello,
> > > It doesn't seem that the number of iterations analysis from loop-iv.c
> deals
> > > with EQ closing branches.
> >
> > loop-iv works just fine for EQ closing branches.
> >
>
> Thanks for the clarification (I didn't see EQ in iv_number_of_iterations's
> switch (cond)).
that is because
Hello,
> Testing on tree-vectorizer testsuite and some of the GCC source files
> showed that frequent source of apparent loss of exported information
> were passes that performed basic block reordering or jump threading.
> The verifier asserted that number of loops was constant and the order
> the
Hello,
you can find the cheatsheet I used during my loop optimizations tutorial
on gccsummit at
http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~rakdver/loopcheat.ps
Zdenek
Hello,
> Can you send out your presentation too?
the slides and the example code are at
http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~rakdver/slides-gcc2007.pdf
http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~rakdver/diff_reverse.diff
Zdenek
Hello,
> I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
> I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
> option?
to cancel this category of maintainers completely? I guess it was
probably discussed before (I am too lazy to check), but the existence
of non
Hello,
> > Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> > that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
> > re. timing for Stage 3?
>
> Zadeck has the parloop branch patches, which I've been reviewing. I am
> not sure how many other patches are left, bu
Hello,
> And finally at the stage of rtl unrolling it looks like this:
> [6] r186 = r2 + C;
> r318 = r186 + 160;
> loop:
> r186 = r186 + 16
> if (r186 != r318) then goto loop else exit
>
> Then, in loop-unroll.c we call iv_number_of_iterations, which eventually
> calls i
Hello,
> >> And finally at the stage of rtl unrolling it looks like this:
> >> [6] r186 = r2 + C;
> >> r318 = r186 + 160;
> >> loop:
> >> r186 = r186 + 16
> >> if (r186 != r318) then goto loop else exit
> >>
> >> Then, in loop-unroll.c we call iv_number_of_iterations, whi
Hello,
> And finally at the stage of rtl unrolling it looks like this:
> [6] r186 = r2 + C;
> r318 = r186 + 160;
> loop:
> r186 = r186 + 16
> if (r186 != r318) then goto loop else exit
>
> Then, in loop-unroll.c we call iv_number_of
Hello,
> An important missing piece is correction of exported information for
> loop unrolling. As far as I can tell, for loop unrolled by factor N we
> need to clone MEM_ORIG_EXPRs and datarefs for newly-created MEMs, create
> no-dependence DDRs for those pairs, for which original DDR was
> no-d
Hello,
> I have several global variables which are of type rtx. They are used
> in flow.c ia64.c and final.c. As stated in the internal doc with
> types. I add GTY(()) marker after the keyword 'extern'. for example:
> extern GTY(()) rtx a;
> these 'extern's are added in regs.h which is in
compilers in general (so that what
you say makes some sense)?
While I was mildly annoyed by your previous "contributions" to the
discussion in the gcc mailing list, I could tolerate those. But
answering a seriously ment question of a beginner by this confusing
and completely irrelevant drivel is another thing.
Sincerely,
Zdenek Dvorak
Hi,
> traceback, tt, and ops follow. Why is this going wrong?
> [ gdb ] call debug_tree(arg0)
> type
> [ gdb ] call debug_tree(arg1)
> type
Hi,
> > > So I am guessing the Felix version is lucky there are
> > > no gratuitous temporaries to be saved when this happens,
> > > and the C code is unlucky and there are.
> > >
> > > Maybe someone who knows how the optimiser works can comment?
> >
> > One problem with departing from the ABI eve
Hi,
> I believe that this is something new and is most likely fallout from
> diego's reworking of the tree to rtl converter.
>
> To fix this will require a round of copy propagation, most likely in
> concert with some induction variable detection, since the most
> profitable place for this will b
Hi,
> >> I believe that this is something new and is most likely fallout from
> >> diego's reworking of the tree to rtl converter.
> >>
> >> To fix this will require a round of copy propagation, most likely in
> >> concert with some induction variable detection, since the most
> >> profitable plac
201 - 228 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
