On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I'm looking for adjusting of live compute - either by adjusting the
> > algorithm or by special casing the latches. Like for example
> > with the following (untested, needs cleanup - the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'm looking for adjusting of live compute - either by adjusting the
> algorithm or by special casing the latches. Like for example
> with the following (untested, needs cleanup - the PHI processing
> can be factored out from find_as
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:48:46AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > --- gcc/tree-vrp.c.jj 2013-11-06 08:48:01.0 +0100
> > > +++ gcc/tree-vrp.c2013-11-06 09:32:19.205104029 +0100
> > > @@ -92,6 +92,42 @@ static sbitmap *live;
> > > s
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:48:46AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > --- gcc/tree-vrp.c.jj 2013-11-06 08:48:01.0 +0100
> > +++ gcc/tree-vrp.c 2013-11-06 09:32:19.205104029 +0100
> > @@ -92,6 +92,42 @@ static sbitmap *live;
> > static bool
> > live_on_edge (edge e, tree name)
> > {
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:00:16PM -0800, Cong Hou wrote:
> > > I'm also curious -- did this code show up in a particular benchmark, if
> > > so,
> > > which one?
> >
> > I didn't find this problem from any benchmark, but from another
> > concern about
On 11/06/13 10:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:00:16PM -0800, Cong Hou wrote:
I'm also curious -- did this code show up in a particular benchmark, if so,
which one?
I didn't find this problem from any benchmark, but from another
concern about loop upper bound estimation. Lo
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:00:16PM -0800, Cong Hou wrote:
> > I'm also curious -- did this code show up in a particular benchmark, if so,
> > which one?
>
> I didn't find this problem from any benchmark, but from another
> concern about loop upper bound estimation. Look at the following code:
>
>
