--- Comment #18 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-24 21:30 ---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
> Note I think the proposed patch attached here will fix PR 32200.
Nop.
Reverting the patch and diffing the assembly code for i686-linux on
both codes from PR
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-24 03:53
---
Fixed.
Note I think the proposed patch attached here will fix PR 32200. That testcase
was not fixed the VRP patch. The VRP patch fixes the case where we have IV -
IV inside the loop.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #16 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 19590
Author: spop
Date: Thu Jun 21 17:06:05 2007
New Revision: 125925
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125925
Log:
PR tree-optimization/19590
* tree-vrp.c (adjust_ra
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 06:30
---
*** Bug 30098 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #14 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-10 15:53 ---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
> I wonder if it helps placing this between cunroll and ivopts...
>
> void foo(int n, int m, int stridex, int stridey, int stridex2, i
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 15:31
---
I wonder if it helps placing this between cunroll and ivopts...
void foo(int n, int m, int stridex, int stridey, int stridex2, int stridey2,
double *x, double *y)
{
for (int k=0; khttp://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
--- Comment #12 from sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2006-04-10
09:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=11235)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11235&action=view)
proposed fix
This patch fixes the problem, but probably it is a more general optimization
fix than
--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 23:20
---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not
eliminated
> --- Comment #10 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2006-04-08 21:13
> ---
> Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
> --- Comment #10 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2006-04-08 21:13
> ---
> Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
>
> > The new SCC value numberer for PRE i'm working on gets this case right (and
> > this is in fact, one of the advantages of SCC based value number
--- Comment #10 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2006-04-08 21:13
---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
> The new SCC value numberer for PRE i'm working on gets this case right (and
> this is in fact, one of the advantages of SCC based value numbering).
Is
--- Comment #9 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 02:53 ---
Actually, it's not really expensive at all.
It's certainly not N^2.
The new SCC value numberer for PRE i'm working on gets this case right (and
this is in fact, one of the advantages of SCC based value numbering).
Y
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 02:26 ---
Comparing the IVs themselves take no time, now figuring out which one are equal
to which set could take some time, at max O(n^2) time. Now n is going to be
small for most cases anyways.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 10:32 ---
It would be more interesting to measure than think ;-)
My experience is that when it is in Briggs' test suite, it usually also happens
in actually useful code. But, only the numbers will tell :-)
Zdenek is right, it
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 09:45 ---
> > They can happen due to macro expansion or C++ template inlining.
> And do they?
If they can, they will do. Will this regularly happen? I think no.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19590
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2005-11-14 09:27 ---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
> They can happen due to macro expansion or C++ template inlining.
And do they?
> I wonder if PRE for scalar-evolutions would be usefu
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 11:47 ---
They can happen due to macro expansion or C++ template inlining. I wonder if
PRE for scalar-evolutions would be useful ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19590
--- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 10:02 ---
This is easy to implement; the question is whether we really want to waste
compile time to handle this type of examples that do not seem very likely to
appear in practice.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 01:43 ---
This hasn't been addressed yet in r106784.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
18 matches
Mail list logo
