On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I've fixed adding virtual phi argument and add check on irreducible basic
> block.
> New patch is attached.
>
> I checked it for bootstrap and regression testing, no new failures.
>
> ChangeLog:
> 2015-10-07 Yuri Rumyantsev
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I noticed that 'gimple' type was changed and send you updated patch.
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks.
> Yuri.
>
> 2015-10-07 12:53 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev :
>> Richard,
>>
>> I've fixed adding virtual phi argument and add che
Richard,
I noticed that 'gimple' type was changed and send you updated patch.
Thanks.
Yuri.
2015-10-07 12:53 GMT+03:00 Yuri Rumyantsev :
> Richard,
>
> I've fixed adding virtual phi argument and add check on irreducible basic
> block.
> New patch is attached.
>
> I checked it for bootstrap and
Richard,
I've fixed adding virtual phi argument and add check on irreducible basic block.
New patch is attached.
I checked it for bootstrap and regression testing, no new failures.
ChangeLog:
2015-10-07 Yuri Rumyantsev
* tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c: Include "gimple-iterator.h" and
"cfghooks.h",
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Here is updated patch which reflects almost all your remarks:
> 1. Use ordinary get_loop_body.
> 2. Delete useless asserts.
> 3. Use check on iterated loop instead of finite_loop_p.
> 4. Do not update CFG by adjusting the CONDs
Richard,
Here is updated patch which reflects almost all your remarks:
1. Use ordinary get_loop_body.
2. Delete useless asserts.
3. Use check on iterated loop instead of finite_loop_p.
4. Do not update CFG by adjusting the CONDs condition to always true/false.
5. Add couple tests.
ChangeLog:
2015
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Thanks Richard.
> I'd like to answer on your last comment related to using of exit edge
> argument for edge that skips loop.
> Let's consider the following test-case:
>
> #include
> #define N 32
> float *foo(int ustride, int size, float *sr
Thanks Richard.
I'd like to answer on your last comment related to using of exit edge
argument for edge that skips loop.
Let's consider the following test-case:
#include
#define N 32
float *foo(int ustride, int size, float *src)
{
float *buffer, *p;
int i, k;
if (!src)
return NULL;
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I re-designed outer loop unswitching using basic idea of 23855 patch -
> hoist invariant guard if loop is empty without guard. Note that this
> was added to loop unswitching pass with simple modifications - using
> another
Hi Richard,
I re-designed outer loop unswitching using basic idea of 23855 patch -
hoist invariant guard if loop is empty without guard. Note that this
was added to loop unswitching pass with simple modifications - using
another loop iterator etc.
Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I learned your updated patch for 23825 and it is more general in
> comparison with my.
> I'd like to propose you a compromise - let's consider my patch only
> for force-vectorize outer loop only to allow outer-loop
> vecctor
On 07/31/2015 05:17 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
Hi Richard,
I learned your updated patch for 23825 and it is more general in
comparison with my.
I'd like to propose you a compromise - let's consider my patch only
for force-vectorize outer loop only to allow outer-loop
vecctorization. Note that yo
Hi Richard,
I learned your updated patch for 23825 and it is more general in
comparison with my.
I'd like to propose you a compromise - let's consider my patch only
for force-vectorize outer loop only to allow outer-loop
vecctorization. Note that your approach will not hoist invariant
guards if lo
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I checked that both test-cases from 23855 are sucessfully unswitched
> by proposed patch. I understand that it does not catch deeper loop
> nest as
>for (i=0; i<10; i++)
> for (j=0;j for (k=0;k<20;k++)
> .
Hi Richard,
I checked that both test-cases from 23855 are sucessfully unswitched
by proposed patch. I understand that it does not catch deeper loop
nest as
for (i=0; i<10; i++)
for (j=0;j:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here is presented simple
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here is presented simple transformation which tries to hoist out of
> outer-loop a check on zero trip count for inner-loop. This is very
> restricted transformation since it accepts outer-loops with very
> simple cfg, as for ex
Hi All,
Here is presented simple transformation which tries to hoist out of
outer-loop a check on zero trip count for inner-loop. This is very
restricted transformation since it accepts outer-loops with very
simple cfg, as for example:
acc = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= m; i++) {
for (j = 0; j
17 matches
Mail list logo
