Hi Martin
On 25/05/18 10:45, Martin Liška wrote:
On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't
On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
> On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
> Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
> It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
On 05/24/2018 02:28 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
going to install the patch so that
I can carry on more
On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote:
On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
* The switchlower -> switchlowe
Hi Martin,
> On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
> going to install the patch so that
> I can carry on more complex pa
On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
* The switchlower -> switchlower1 renames in the dg-final* lines
(attached)
Hi Martin,
>>> Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that.
>>> It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish.
>>
>> unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:
>>
>> * The switchlower -> switchlower1 renames in the dg-final* lines
>> (attached) are still necessary
On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
going to install the patch so that
I can carry on more complex patches based on this on
Hi Martin,
> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
>>> going to install the patch so that
>>> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one.
>>
>> it seems you didn't properly test the test
On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
>> going to install the patch so that
>> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one.
>
> it seems you didn't properly test the testsuite part: I see
>
Hi Martin,
> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm
> going to install the patch so that
> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one.
it seems you didn't properly test the testsuite part: I see
+UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c scan-tree-
On 01/15/2018 12:22 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> Can you please post CSiBE numbers? Ideally throwing in gcc-3.4.6 numbers too?
>
> thanks,
Hi.
I've just retested the patch and looks fine. There are numbers of CSiBE. I'm
sorry I don't
have such old version of GCC:
+---
On 10 January 2018 15:59:28 CET, "Martin Liška" wrote:
>On 01/10/2018 02:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
On 01/10/2018 02:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Thank you Jeff for very ve
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
Hello.
Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning
t
On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning
>>> to do
>>> follow-up of this patch that will include clusteri
On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning
>> to do
>> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and jump
>> tables.
>> Maybe that w
On 20 September 2017 17:00:13 CEST, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm
>planning to do
>> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests
>and jump tables.
>> Maybe
On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning to
> do
> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and jump
> tables.
> Maybe that will make aforementioned issues even more difficult
On 09/16/2017 12:19 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/14/2017 06:17 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be
>> massive
>> simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it
>> includes
>> VRP and DCE, which w
On 09/14/2017 06:17 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be
> massive
> simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it
> includes
> VRP and DCE, which we can for obvious reason do by our own.
>
> The
Hello.
As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be massive
simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it
includes
VRP and DCE, which we can for obvious reason do by our own.
The patch does that, and introduces a separate pass for -O0 that's
22 matches
Mail list logo
