RE: [PATCH 2/2] [graphite] update required isl versions

Good points. I will send an updated patch following all your recommendations. Sebastian -Original Message- From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:42 AM To: Sebastian Pop Cc: Sebastian Pop; GCC Patches; hiradi...@msn.com Subject: Re: [PA

RE: [PATCH] enable loop fusion on isl-15

I would highly recommend updating the required version of ISL to isl-0.15: that would simplify the existing code, removing a lot of code under "#ifdef old ISL", and allow us to fully transition to schedule_trees instead of dealing with the old antiquated union_maps in the scheudler. The result is

RE: [PATCH 2/2] [graphite] fix invalid bounds on array refs

Do you recommend that we add a gcc_assert that min is always lower than max? The change in Graphite code can be reverted then: >+ /* Fortran has some arrays where high bound is -1 and low is 0. */ >+ if (integer_onep (fold_build2 (LT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, high, >low))) >+return false;

RE: [PATCH 1/2] [Refactoring graphite] Move declarations, assign types, renaming.

We just realized why this error got introduced: the code that fails is in an #ifdef of ISL-0.14 or earlier. We only bootstrapped and regtested the change with ISL-0.15. Sorry again for the breakage, Sebastian -Original Message- From: Sebastian Paul Pop [mailto:s@samsung.com] Sent

RE: [PATCH 1/2] [Refactoring graphite] Move declarations, assign types, renaming.

Thanks for the quick fix. Sorry for breaking bootstrap. -Original Message- From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:43 AM To: Aditya Kumar Cc: GCC Patches; Tobias Grosser; Richard Biener; aditya...@samsung.com; Sebastian Pop; Sebastian Pop Subject: R

RE: [PATCH] use MIN fusion for ISL-14

The AST looked very bad: see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67754#c2 There were a lot of testcases failing with MAX fusion. Sebastian -Original Message- From: Tobias Grosser [mailto:tob...@grosser.es] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:14 PM To: Sebastian Pop; gcc-patches@

RE: [PATCH] fix PR67700

I fixed this in a follow-up patch. Sebastian -Original Message- From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 2:39 PM To: Tobias Grosser Cc: Sebastian Pop; GCC Patches; Sebastian Pop; aditya...@samsung.com; Richard Biener Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix PR67700 O

RE: [Graphite] Redesign Graphite scop detection

Hi Tobi, we do not cache SCEV information as it depends on the region boundaries, so I think we are safe when we extend scops. On handling non-affine regions/loops, you are right, we would need to first teach scop detection about how to handle them, and then teach it to the SESE-to-poly pass as w

RE: [PATCH] Remove dead code from graphite-optimize-isl.c

For the record, the patch LGTM. Aditya and I have discussed about this in the morning. Thanks, Sebastian -Original Message- From: Aditya Kumar [mailto:aditya...@samsung.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 12:30 PM To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: tob...@grosser.es; richard.guent...@gmai

RE: [PATCH 0/3] [linaro/gcc-4_9-branch] backport fixes to jump-threading

I do not intend to back-port the jump-thread patches to the fsf gcc 4.9 branch: the patches I sent are only for the linaro 4.9 branch. Yes, please test the patches with your validation suite, and then commit to the linaro branch. Thanks, Sebastian -Original Message- From: Yvan Roux [mai

RE: [PATCH 1/2] remove -floop-unroll-and-jam

> unroll-and-jam is new in GCC 6, right? So you can remove the option > completely. The reason I left the flag around is that it was added in GCC 5: commit 5240f96a55db98b04275fda34c891fbbc629b825 Author: mircea Date: Mon Nov 17 22:59:07 2014 + Support for unroll and jam optimizatio