Hi!
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jiufu Guo
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jiufu Guo writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi!
> >> >>
> >> >> >
Hi!
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jiufu Guo writes:
>> >>
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Sehger,
>> >> >
>> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On T
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Jiufu Guo writes:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> > Hi Sehger,
> >> >
> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wro
Hi!
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Jiufu Guo writes:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Hi Sehger,
>> >
>> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >>> > No. insn_cost is onl
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Jiufu Guo writes:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Hi Sehger,
> >
> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >>> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
Jiufu Guo writes:
Hi!
> Hi Sehger,
>
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
>>> > made-up nonsense. I created insn_cost precisely to ge
Hi Sehger,
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
>> > made-up nonsense. I created insn_cost precisely to get away from that
>> > aspect of r
Hi,
Jeff Law writes:
> On 3/1/2022 12:47 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>
>>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>>
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> And another
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
> > made-up nonsense. I created insn_cost precisely to get away from that
> > aspect of rtx_cost (and some other issues, like, it is incre
On 3/1/2022 12:47 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Segher Boessenkool writes:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
muc
Segher Boessenkool writes:
Hi!
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:48:54PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > That is the problem yes. You need insns to call insn_cost on. You can
>> > look in combine.c:combine_validate_cost to see how this can be done; but
>> > you n
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
>> >> > much work.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
> >> > much work. It may be ok to separate the cons
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
>> > much work. It may be ok to separate the constant handling
>> > logic from CSE.
>>
>> Not sure
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
> > much work. It may be ok to separate the constant handling
> > logic from CSE.
>
> Not sure - CSE just is value numbering, I don
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:48:54PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > That is the problem yes. You need insns to call insn_cost on. You can
> > look in combine.c:combine_validate_cost to see how this can be done; but
> > you need to have some code to generate in the fi
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> >>
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Bi
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> >>
> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >>> I'm assuming we'
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>>
>> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>> >>>
>> >>> (set (reg:MODE ..)
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>
> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
> >>>
> >>> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
> >>>
> >>> here and CSE is not s
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:32:55PM +0800, guojiufu wrote:
>> >We already have TARGET_INSN_COST which you could ask for a cost.
>> >Like if we'd have a single_set then just temporarily substitute
>> >the RHS with the candidate and cost the insns and compare against
>>
Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>>>
>>> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
>>>
>>> here and CSE is not substituting into random places of an
>>> instruction(?). I
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>>
>> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
>>
>> here and CSE is not substituting into random places of an
>> instruction(?). I don't know what 'rtx_cost' should evaluate
>>
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:32:55PM +0800, guojiufu wrote:
> >We already have TARGET_INSN_COST which you could ask for a cost.
> >Like if we'd have a single_set then just temporarily substitute
> >the RHS with the candidate and cost the insns and compare against
> >the original insn cost. So why ex
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>
> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
>
> here and CSE is not substituting into random places of an
> instruction(?). I don't know what 'rtx_cost' should evaluate
> to for a constant, if it should impli
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, guojiufu wrote:
>
>
> On 2/22/22 PM3:26, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
> >> to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
>
On 2/22/22 PM3:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Hi,
For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
mem. There are still some places that could be improved for platform
On 2022-02-23 01:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Jiu Fu,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 02:53:13PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
static bool
rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem (machine_mode mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
rtx x)
{
- if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH
- && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == UNSPEC)
+ if (GET_CO
Hi Jiu Fu,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 02:53:13PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> static bool
> rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem (machine_mode mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, rtx x)
> {
> - if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH
> - && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == UNSPEC)
> + if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH)
> return true;
Thi
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
> to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
> mem. There are still some places that could be improved for platforms.
>
> This patch could handle PR632
Hi,
For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
mem. There are still some places that could be improved for platforms.
This patch could handle PR63281/57836. This patch does not change
too much on the
34 matches
Mail list logo
