> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 04:49:27 +0200
> > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:41:58 +0200
> > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > > Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:24:41 +0200
> > > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > > > Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:02:25 +0200
> >
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:41:58 +0200
> > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:24:41 +0200
> > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > > Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:02:25 +0200
> >
> > Ping. I missed the PR number decoration on the ChangeLog entry:
> >
> >
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:24:41 +0200
> > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:02:25 +0200
>
> Ping. I missed the PR number decoration on the ChangeLog entry:
>
> PR rtl-optimization/53176
> > * rtlanal.c (rtx_cost): Adjust default cost
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:02:25 +0200
Ping. I missed the PR number decoration on the ChangeLog entry:
PR rtl-optimization/53176
> * rtlanal.c (rtx_cost): Adjust default cost for X with a
> UNITS_PER_WORD factor for all X according to the size of
>
Il 10/05/2012 08:45, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> Il 30/03/2012 12:08, Richard Sandiford ha scritto:
+ There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
+
+ #define LOG_COSTS
+
+ if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
+
Il 30/03/2012 12:08, Richard Sandiford ha scritto:
>> > + There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
>> > +
>> > + #define LOG_COSTS
>> > +
>> > + if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
>> > + for each mode wider than word mode and the cost
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 16:46:38 +0200
> To repeat: as things stand, very few targets define proper rtx costs
> for SET.
IMHO it's wrong to start blaming targets when rtx_cost doesn't
take the mode in account in the first place, for the default
cost. (Well, except for
On May 4, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Mike Stump schrieb:
>> On May 3, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>>> It's hardly possible to write proper rtx_costs for SET:
>>> 1) What should be the cost of (const_int 1) if you don't see the machine
>>> mode? Is it QI, is it HI, i
Mike Stump schrieb:
On May 3, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
It's hardly possible to write proper rtx_costs for SET:
1) What should be the cost of (const_int 1) if you don't see the
machine mode? Is it QI, is it HI, is it SI or whatever?
You can choose to see the complete express
On May 3, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> It's hardly possible to write proper rtx_costs for SET:
>
> 1) What should be the cost of (const_int 1) if you don't see the
> machine mode? Is it QI, is it HI, is it SI or whatever?
You can choose to see the complete expression in its entire
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Richard Sandiford writes:
Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
I think that one of you should try to write a test case where it makes a
difference, and add the test case to the testsuite.
I originally took that to m
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> Richard Sandiford writes:
>>> Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
>>
>> I think that one of you should try to write a test case where it makes a
>> difference, and add the test case t
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
>
> I think that one of you should try to write a test case where it makes a
> difference, and add the test case to the testsuite.
I originally took that to mean a case where fun
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Does anyone else have any thoughts before I make that change?
I think that one of you should try to write a test case where it makes a
difference, and add the test case to the testsuite.
Ian
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> Richard,
>
> thanks, for doing the changes.In particular, i did not really
> understand how the target stuff was supposed to work.
>
> I have one issue with the changes that you made.
>
> I had actually decided that the speed/size decision was not relevant to
> this
Richard Sandiford writes:
> What do you think? The patch looks OK to me with these changes,
> but I'd like to leave it for 48 hours to see if Ian has any comments.
The patch looks fine to me.
Thanks.
Ian
> 2012-04-03 Kenneth Zadeck
> Richard Sandiford
>
> * Makefile.in (
Richard,
thanks, for doing the changes.In particular, i did not really
understand how the target stuff was supposed to work.
I have one issue with the changes that you made.
I had actually decided that the speed/size decision was not relevant to
this patch.The problem is that since t
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> +#define FORCE_LOWERING
Don't think you meant to keep this.
> -/* Return whether X is a simple object which we can take a word_mode
> - subreg of. */
> +static struct {
> +
> + /* This pass can transform 4 different operations: move, ashift,
> + lshiftrt, and zer
New version of the patch, with all of Richard Sandiford's comments
applied and retested.
Ok for commit?
Kenny
2012-03-31 Kenneth Zadeck
* toplev.c (backend_init_target): Call initializer for lower-subreg
pass.
* lower-subreg.c (target_info): New static var.
(compute_move_cost,
On 30 March 2012 20:29, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> ramana
>
> i get the same failure on the trunk without my patch.
>
In which case I apologise and will file a bug report separately. I
should really have checked :( .
Ramana
>
> kenny
>
> On 03/30/2012 07:36 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>>
>> Hi
ramana
i get the same failure on the trunk without my patch.
kenny
On 03/30/2012 07:36 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Hi
I have tested this on an x86_64 with both the force lowering on and off and
neither cause any regressions as well as extensive testing on my port.
So, just out of curi
"Georg-Johann Lay" writes:
>> This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
>> patch in
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
>>
>> This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
>> splitting wide moves, zero extensions, and
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>>> + There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
>>> +
>>> + #define LOG_COSTS
>>> +
>>> + if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
>>> + for each mode wider than word mode and the cost estimates for zero
>>> + extensi
On 03/30/2012 10:39 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
splitting wide moves, zero extensions, an
+ There are two useful preprocessor defines for use by maintainers:
+
+ #define LOG_COSTS
+
+ if you wish to see the actual cost estimates that are being used
+ for each mode wider than word mode and the cost estimates for zero
+ extension and the shifts. This can be useful when po
> This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
> patch in
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
>
> This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
> splitting wide moves, zero extensions, and shifts, so that it now takes
> in
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
> patch in
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
>
> This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
> splitting wide moves, zero extensions, and shifts, so t
On 29 March 2012 22:10, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the patch
> in
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
>
> This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
> splitting wide moves, zero extensi
This patch takes a different approach to fixing PR52543 than does the
patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg00641.html
This patch transforms the lower-subreg pass(es) from unconditionally
splitting wide moves, zero extensions, and shifts, so that it now takes
into account the
29 matches
Mail list logo
