On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 02/09/15 16:18, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/08/15 17:57, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/2015 08:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> 2015-08-10 Kyrylo Tkachov
>
>* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add
On 09/02/2015 09:18 AM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
On 19/08/15 17:57, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/2015 08:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
2015-08-10 Kyrylo Tkachov
* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add then_simple, else_simple,
then_cost, else_cost fields. Change branch_cost field to
un
On 02/09/15 16:18, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
On 19/08/15 17:57, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/2015 08:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
2015-08-10 Kyrylo Tkachov
* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add then_simple, else_simple,
then_cost, else_cost fields. Change branch_cost field to
unsigne
>
>
> On 19/08/15 17:57, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 08/12/2015 08:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> >> 2015-08-10 Kyrylo Tkachov
> >>
> >> * ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add then_simple, else_simple,
> >> then_cost, else_cost fields. Change branch_cost field to
> >> unsigned int.
> >>
On 08/19/2015 11:20 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hmmm...
The function bb_valid_for_noce_process_p that we call early on
in noce_process_if_block makes sure that the only live reg out
of each basic block is the final common destination ('x' in the
noce_if_info struct definition). Since both basic bl
On 19/08/15 17:57, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/2015 08:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
2015-08-10 Kyrylo Tkachov
* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add then_simple, else_simple,
then_cost, else_cost fields. Change branch_cost field to unsigned
int.
(end_ifcvt_sequence): Call set_u
On 08/12/2015 08:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
2015-08-10 Kyrylo Tkachov
* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add then_simple, else_simple,
then_cost, else_cost fields. Change branch_cost field to unsigned
int.
(end_ifcvt_sequence): Call set_used_flags on each insn in the
sequ
> Cc: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer; GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH][RTL-ifcvt] Make non-conditional execution if-
> conversion more aggressive
>
>
> On 11/08/15 18:09, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > On 11/08/15 18:05, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 08/09/2015 03:20 PM, Steven Bossc
On 11/08/15 18:09, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 11/08/15 18:05, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/09/2015 03:20 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So there's a tight relationship between the implementation of
bbs_ok_for_cmove_arith and insn_valid_noce_process_p. If
On 11/08/15 18:05, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/09/2015 03:20 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So there's a tight relationship between the implementation of
bbs_ok_for_cmove_arith and insn_valid_noce_process_p. If there wasn't, then
we'd probably be lookin
On 08/09/2015 03:20 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
So there's a tight relationship between the implementation of
bbs_ok_for_cmove_arith and insn_valid_noce_process_p. If there wasn't, then
we'd probably be looking to use note_stores and note_uses.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> So there's a tight relationship between the implementation of
> bbs_ok_for_cmove_arith and insn_valid_noce_process_p. If there wasn't, then
> we'd probably be looking to use note_stores and note_uses.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is
On 07/28/2015 04:14 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
[ Snip ]
Here's a respin.
I've reworked bbs_ok_for_cmove_arith to go over BB_A once and record
the set registers then go over BB_B once and look inside the SET_SRC
of each insn for those registers. How does this look? Would you like
me to investigat
On 07/27/2015 10:40 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 27/07/15 17:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/27/2015 04:17 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I experimented with resource.c and the roadblock I hit is that it
seems to have an assumption that it operates on hard regs (in fact
the struct it uses to describe the
Hi Jeff,
On 27/07/15 17:40, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 27/07/15 17:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/27/2015 04:17 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I experimented with resource.c and the roadblock I hit is that it
seems to have an assumption that it operates on hard regs (in fact
the struct it uses to describe
On 27/07/15 17:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/27/2015 04:17 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I experimented with resource.c and the roadblock I hit is that it
seems to have an assumption that it operates on hard regs (in fact
the struct it uses to describe the resources has a HARD_REG_SET for
the regs) and
On 07/27/2015 04:17 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
I experimented with resource.c and the roadblock I hit is that it
seems to have an assumption that it operates on hard regs (in fact
the struct it uses to describe the resources has a HARD_REG_SET for
the regs) and so it triggers various HARD_REGISTER
Hi Jeff,
On 24/07/15 19:43, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/24/2015 03:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to walk BB_A, gathering the set of all the
registers modified, then do a single walk through BB testing for uses of
those registers?
I think so, yes. I'll try that.
You might look
On 07/24/2015 03:31 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to walk BB_A, gathering the set of all the
registers modified, then do a single walk through BB testing for uses of
those registers?
I think so, yes. I'll try that.
You might look at resource.c -- I haven't looked at it in a l
On 23/07/15 21:38, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/13/2015 08:03 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
2015-07-13 Kyrylo Tkachov
* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add then_simple, else_simple,
then_cost, else_cost fields. Change branch_cost field to unsigned
int.
(end_ifcvt_sequence): Call set_u
On 07/13/2015 08:03 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
2015-07-13 Kyrylo Tkachov
* ifcvt.c (struct noce_if_info): Add then_simple, else_simple,
then_cost, else_cost fields. Change branch_cost field to unsigned
int.
(end_ifcvt_sequence): Call set_used_flags on each insn in the
sequ
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01047.html
The go testsuite passes for me on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu for me.
A third data point on testing would be appreciated...
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 13/07/15 15:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Bernhard,
On 13/07/15 10:45, Kyrill Tkachov wrote
Hi Bernhard,
On 13/07/15 10:45, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
PS: no -mbranch-cost and, a tad more seriously, no --param branch-cost either ;)
PPS: attached meant to illustrate comments above. Untested.
Thanks a lot! This is all very helpful.
I'll respin the patch.
Here it is. I've expanded the comme
On 13/07/15 11:48, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On July 13, 2015 11:45:55 AM GMT+02:00, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
Hi Bernhard,
Did you include go in your testing?
I see:
Unexpected results in this build (new failures)
FAIL: encoding/json
FAIL: go/printer
FAIL: go/scanner
FAIL: html/template
On July 13, 2015 11:45:55 AM GMT+02:00, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>Hi Bernhard,
>
>> Did you include go in your testing?
>> I see:
>> Unexpected results in this build (new failures)
>> FAIL: encoding/json
>> FAIL: go/printer
>> FAIL: go/scanner
>> FAIL: html/template
>> FAIL: log
>> FAIL: net/http
>
On 13/07/15 10:45, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
+/* Return iff the registers that the insns in BB_A set do not
+ get used in BB_B. */
Return true iff
I tried to be too formal here ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
I'll use a normal if here.
Err, of course you were talking about
Hi Bernhard,
On 11/07/15 00:00, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On 10 July 2015 at 14:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch makes if-conversion more aggressive when handling code of the
form:
if (test)
x := a //THEN
else
x := b //ELSE
The current code adds the costs of both the
On 11 July 2015 at 01:00, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On 10 July 2015 at 14:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> PS: no -mbranch-cost and, a tad more seriously, no --param branch-cost either
> ;)
err, arm and aarch64 have no -mbranch-cost, a couple of prominent
other arches do..
On 10 July 2015 at 14:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch makes if-conversion more aggressive when handling code of the
> form:
> if (test)
> x := a //THEN
> else
> x := b //ELSE
> The current code adds the costs of both the THEN and ELSE blocks and proceeds
> if they don't
On 10/07/15 13:31, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
+ to compute a value for x. Put the rtx cost of the insns
+ in TEST_BB into COST. Record whether TEST_BB is a single simple
+ set instruction in SIMPLE_P. If the bb is not simple place all insns
+ except the last insn into SEQ. */
+
That las
Hi all,
This patch makes if-conversion more aggressive when handling code of the form:
if (test)
x := a //THEN
else
x := b //ELSE
Currently, we can handle this case only if x:=a and x:=b are simple single set
instructions.
With this patch we will be able to handle the cases where x:=a and
31 matches
Mail list logo
