On 12/05/13 13:21, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 12:02 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 12/04/13 13:08, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
[snip]
I'm not sure what you're suggesting that he use get_inner_reference on
at this point. At the p
On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 12:02 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 12/04/13 13:08, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yufeng
On 12/04/13 13:08, Bill Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 07:13 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:30 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
>> > > wr
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 07:13 -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:30 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biene
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:32 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 12/04/13 10:30, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Y
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:30 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> >>> >On 12/03/13 14:20, Richa
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 11:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> >> >On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zha
On 12/04/13 10:30, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Yufeng Zhang wrote:
>>> >On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang
>>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Yufeng Zhang wrote:
>> >On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang
>> >wrote:
>> >>> On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> >>
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:57 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 12/03/13 20:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> >> On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang
> >> wrote:
> On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > On 12/02/
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> >On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang
> >wrote:
> >>> On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 12/02/13 08:47, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> >
> > Ping
On 12/03/13 20:35, Richard Biener wrote:
Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang
wrote:
On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/02/13 08:47, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
Ping~
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03360.ht
Yufeng Zhang wrote:
>On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang
>wrote:
>>> On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/02/13 08:47, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
>
> Ping~
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03360.html
On 12/03/13 08:52, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
I still don't like it. It's using the wrong and too expensive tools
to do
stuff. What kind of bases are we ultimately interested in? Browsing
the code it looks like we're having
/* Base expression for the chain of candidates: often, but not
al
On 12/03/13 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/02/13 08:47, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
Ping~
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03360.html
Thanks,
Yufeng
On 11/26/13 15:02, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 12/02/13 08:47, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping~
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03360.html
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yufeng
>>>
>>> On 11/26/13 15:02, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
>
On 12/03/13 06:48, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/02/13 08:47, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
Ping~
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03360.html
Thanks,
Yufeng
On 11/26/13 15:02, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 11/26/13 12:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Yufeng
Zhangwrote:
On 12/02/13 08:47, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
Ping~
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03360.html
Thanks,
Yufeng
On 11/26/13 15:02, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 11/26/13 12:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Yufeng
Zhang wrote:
On 11/13/13 20:54, Bill Schmidt wrot
Ping~
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03360.html
Thanks,
Yufeng
On 11/26/13 15:02, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 11/26/13 12:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 11/13/13 20:54, Bill Schmidt wrote:
The second version of your original pat
On 11/26/13 12:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
Hi Bill,
On 11/13/13 20:54, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Yufeng,
The second version of your original patch is ok with me with the
following changes. Sorry for the little side adventure into the
next-i
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
>
> On 11/13/13 20:54, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yufeng,
>>
>> The second version of your original patch is ok with me with the
>> following changes. Sorry for the little side adventure into the
>> next-interp logic; in the end
Ping^2
The patch was posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01523.html
Thanks,
Yufeng
On 11/19/13 11:45, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
Hi Richard,
Can I get an approval or some feedback from you about the patch?
Regards,
Yufeng
On 11/13/13 23:25, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 11/13/13 2
Hi Richard,
Can I get an approval or some feedback from you about the patch?
Regards,
Yufeng
On 11/13/13 23:25, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
On 11/13/13 20:54, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Yufeng,
The second version of your original patch is ok with me with the
following changes.
Thanks a lot for the rev
Hi Bill,
On 11/13/13 20:54, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Yufeng,
The second version of your original patch is ok with me with the
following changes. Sorry for the little side adventure into the
next-interp logic; in the end that's going to hurt more than it helps in
this case. Thanks for having a l
Hi Yufeng,
The second version of your original patch is ok with me with the
following changes. Sorry for the little side adventure into the
next-interp logic; in the end that's going to hurt more than it helps in
this case. Thanks for having a look at it, anyway. Thanks also for
cleaning up thi
Hi Yufeng,
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 19:32 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On 11/13/13 18:04, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi Yufeng,
> >
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 22:34 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> >> Hi Bill,
> >>
> >> Many thanks for the review.
> >>
> >> I find your suggestion on using the n
Hi Bill,
On 11/13/13 18:04, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Yufeng,
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 22:34 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
Hi Bill,
Many thanks for the review.
I find your suggestion on using the next_interp field quite
enlightening. I prepared a patch which adds changes without modifying
the framew
Hi Yufeng,
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 22:34 +, Yufeng Zhang wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Many thanks for the review.
>
> I find your suggestion on using the next_interp field quite
> enlightening. I prepared a patch which adds changes without modifying
> the framework. With the patch, the slsr pass
Hi Bill,
Many thanks for the review.
I find your suggestion on using the next_interp field quite
enlightening. I prepared a patch which adds changes without modifying
the framework. With the patch, the slsr pass now tries to create a
second candidate for each memory accessing gimple stateme
Hi Yufeng,
The idea is a good one but I don't like your implementation of adding an
extra expression parameter to look at on the find_basis_for_candidate
lookup. This goes against the design of the pass and may not be
sufficiently general (might there be situations where a third possible
basis co
Hi,
This patch extends the slsr pass to optionally use an alternative base
expression in finding basis for CAND_REFs. Currently the pass uses
hash-based algorithm to match the base_expr in a candidate. Given a
test case like the following, slsr will not be able to recognize the two
CAND_REF
33 matches
Mail list logo
