Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 16:22 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, William J. Schmidt >> wrote: >> > Jakub, thanks!  Based on this, I believe the patch is correct in its >> > handling of the STMT_VINFO_PA

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:36:01AM -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote: > Per Jakub's explanation, the replacement statements are distributed over > the original pattern statements. Visiting STMT_VINFO_RELATED_STMT for a > statement marked STMT_VINFO_IN_PATTERN_P will find zero or one > replacement st

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:22:32PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > Jakub, thanks!  Based on this, I believe the patch is correct in its > > handling of the STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_SEQ logic, without any double > > counting. > > > > I

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 16:22 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > Jakub, thanks! Based on this, I believe the patch is correct in its > > handling of the STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_SEQ logic, without any double > > counting. > > > > I misi

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > Jakub, thanks!  Based on this, I believe the patch is correct in its > handling of the STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_SEQ logic, without any double > counting. > > I misinterpreted what the commentary for vect_pattern_recog was saying: > I thoug

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread William J. Schmidt
Jakub, thanks! Based on this, I believe the patch is correct in its handling of the STMT_VINFO_PATTERN_DEF_SEQ logic, without any double counting. I misinterpreted what the commentary for vect_pattern_recog was saying: I thought that all replacements were hung off of the last pattern statement, b

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 07:31:01AM -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote: > >From the commentary at the end of tree-vect-patterns.c, only the main > statement in the pattern (the last one) is flagged as > STMT_VINFO_IN_PATTERN_P. So this is finding the new replacement > statement which has been created

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread William J. Schmidt
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 07:31 -0600, William J. Schmidt wrote: > Richard, thanks. I can answer most of your questions, but for the last > one I will have to ask Ira to weigh in. > > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:06 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:56 PM, William J. Schmidt >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread William J. Schmidt
Richard, thanks. I can answer most of your questions, but for the last one I will have to ask Ira to weigh in. On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:06 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:56 PM, William J. Schmidt > wrote: > > Following is a revision of yesterday's PR50031 patch submiss

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-10 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:56 PM, William J. Schmidt wrote: > Following is a revision of yesterday's PR50031 patch submission, > modified per Richard's comments.  Bootstrapped and tested with no > regressions on powerpc64-linux.  I've confirmed the same performance > improvements in SPEC.  OK for tr

[PATCH] Fix PR50031, take 2

2012-02-09 Thread William J. Schmidt
Following is a revision of yesterday's PR50031 patch submission, modified per Richard's comments. Bootstrapped and tested with no regressions on powerpc64-linux. I've confirmed the same performance improvements in SPEC. OK for trunk? Thanks, Bill 2012-02-09 Bill Schmidt Ira Ros