Il 26/07/2012 22:22, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
> Aha, I honestly couldn't figure out that was what you were trying to
> catch with the version you posted previously.
>
> How about this one? Tested as before.
Yeah, that's cleaner.
Paolo
On 07/26/2012 01:22 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> 2012-07-26 Andrew Jenner
> Sandra Loosemore
>
> gcc/
> * cse.c (find_comparison_args): Check for cycles of any length.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
> * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr50380.c: Add code to cause cycle of length
On 07/26/2012 01:28 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 26/07/2012 04:25, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
>> On 07/25/2012 01:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>> What I'm worried about is the extra cost of malloc-ing and free-ing
>>> the pointer set. Perhaps you can skip the pointer set creation in
>>> the
Il 26/07/2012 04:25, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
> On 07/25/2012 01:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> What I'm worried about is the extra cost of malloc-ing and free-ing
>> the pointer set. Perhaps you can skip the pointer set creation in
>> the common case where find_comparison_args does not it
On 07/25/2012 01:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> What I'm worried about is the extra cost of malloc-ing and free-ing the
> pointer set. Perhaps you can skip the pointer set creation in the common
> case where find_comparison_args does not iterate? Something like this:
>
> [snip]
I think this v
Il 24/07/2012 22:17, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
> I was looking to see what needs to be done to un-stick this previously
> submitted patch:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01419.html
>
> Paolo's suggestion was to re-write this to use a "tortoise-and-hare"
> algorithm to detect
I was looking to see what needs to be done to un-stick this previously
submitted patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01419.html
Paolo's suggestion was to re-write this to use a "tortoise-and-hare"
algorithm to detect the circularity, rather than Andrew's solution of
using a po
Il 21/05/2012 19:21, Andrew Jenner ha scritto:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> On 5/21/2012 10:12 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> That's pretty heavy-weight. Perhaps you can try the usual algorithm of
>> looking at x->next and x->next->next?
>
> That would only detect cycles of length 1 and 2 though. While that wou
Hi Paolo,
On 5/21/2012 10:12 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
That's pretty heavy-weight. Perhaps you can try the usual algorithm of
looking at x->next and x->next->next?
That would only detect cycles of length 1 and 2 though. While that would
cover all the testcases we currently know about, I wante
Il 21/05/2012 17:54, Andrew Jenner ha scritto:
> This patch is a followup to the patch Sandra Loosemore made to fix
> PR50380 (see (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01402.html).
> That patch only detects fixed points, but Joseph Myers found a testcase
> which creates a cycle of length 2
This patch is a followup to the patch Sandra Loosemore made to fix
PR50380 (see (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01402.html).
That patch only detects fixed points, but Joseph Myers found a testcase
which creates a cycle of length 2, causing find_comparison_args to stall
even with t
11 matches
Mail list logo
