On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> On 15/09/15 08:43, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for chiming in so late...
>
> Not at all, TYVM for your help!
>
> > TREE_CONSTANT isn't the correct thing to test. You should use
> > TREE_CODE () == INTEGER_CST instead.
>
> Done (in some cases,
On 15/09/15 08:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Sorry for chiming in so late...
Not at all, TYVM for your help!
> TREE_CONSTANT isn't the correct thing to test. You should use
> TREE_CODE () == INTEGER_CST instead.
Done (in some cases, via tree_fits_shwi_p).
> Also you need to handle
> NULL_TREE
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Ping. (Rerevert with 5 lines extra paranoia in scalarizable_type_p).
Sorry for chiming in so late...
+ if (TYPE_DOMAIN (type) == NULL_TREE
+ || !TREE_CONSTANT (TYPE_MIN_VALUE (TYPE_DOMAIN (type)))
+ || !TREE_CONSTANT (TYPE_MAX_VALU
Ping. (Rerevert with 5 lines extra paranoia in scalarizable_type_p).
Thanks, Alan
On 08/09/15 13:43, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:15:45PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
In-Reply-To: <55e0697d.2010...@arm.com>
On 28/08/15 16:08, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Alan Lawrence wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:15:45PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <55e0697d.2010...@arm.com>
>
> On 28/08/15 16:08, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >>
> >> Right. I think VLA's are the problem with pr64312.C also. I'm testing a fix
> >> (that declares arrays with a
In-Reply-To: <55e0697d.2010...@arm.com>
On 28/08/15 16:08, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> Right. I think VLA's are the problem with pr64312.C also. I'm testing a fix
>> (that declares arrays with any of these properties as unscalarizable).
> ...
> In the meantime I've reverted
Alan Lawrence wrote:
Right. I think VLA's are the problem with pr64312.C also. I'm testing a fix
(that declares arrays with any of these properties as unscalarizable).
Monday is a bank holiday in UK and so I expect to get back to you on Tuesday.
--Alan
In the meantime I've reverted the pat
Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Christophe Lyon wrote:
I asked because I assumed that Alan saw it pass in his configuration.
Bah. No - I now discover a problem in my C++ testsuite setup that was causing
a large number of tests to not be executed. I see the pro
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >
> > I asked because I assumed that Alan saw it pass in his configuration.
>
>
> Bah. No - I now discover a problem in my C++ testsuite setup that was causing
> a large number of tests to not be executed. I see the problem to
Christophe Lyon wrote:
I asked because I assumed that Alan saw it pass in his configuration.
Bah. No - I now discover a problem in my C++ testsuite setup that was causing a
large number of tests to not be executed. I see the problem too now,
investigating
--Alan
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 28 August 2015 at 09:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 August 2015 at 17:43, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >> > Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> First, I would be much
> >> >> happier if you adde
On 28 August 2015 at 09:48, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
>> On 27 August 2015 at 17:43, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> > Martin Jambor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> First, I would be much
>> >> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which
>> >> you
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 27 August 2015 at 17:43, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> > Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>
> >> First, I would be much
> >> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which
> >> you forgot completely. The name is not very descriptive and it
On 27 August 2015 at 17:43, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> First, I would be much
>> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which
>> you forgot completely. The name is not very descriptive and it has
>> quite few parameters too.
>>
>> Second, this patc
Jeff Law wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-15.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-15.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..e251058
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-15.c
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+/* Verify that SRA total scalarization works on records containi
Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> First, I would be much
> happier if you added a proper comment to scalarize_elem function which
> you forgot completely. The name is not very descriptive and it has
> quite few parameters too.
>
> Second, this patch should also fix PR 67283. It would be great if you
> cou
On August 26, 2015 6:08:55 PM GMT+02:00, Alan Lawrence
wrote:
>Richard Biener wrote:
>
One extra question is does the way we limit total scalarization
>work
>>> well
for arrays? I suppose we have either sth like the maximum size of
>an
aggregate we scalarize or the maximum number
Richard Biener wrote:
One extra question is does the way we limit total scalarization work
well
for arrays? I suppose we have either sth like the maximum size of an
aggregate we scalarize or the maximum number of component accesses
we create?
Only the former and that would be kept intact.
On August 26, 2015 11:30:26 AM GMT+02:00, Martin Jambor wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:07:33AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:1
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:07:33AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:14PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This changes the completely_s
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:14PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays
>>> (thus
>>> allowing records containing
On 08/25/2015 03:42 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:14PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays (thus
allowing records containing arrays, etc.). This just required extending the
existing type_consists_of_re
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06:14PM +0100, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays (thus
> allowing records containing arrays, etc.). This just required extending the
> existing type_consists_of_records_p and completely_scalarize_record me
On 08/25/2015 05:06 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays (thus
allowing records containing arrays, etc.). This just required extending the
existing type_consists_of_records_p and completely_scalarize_record methods
to handle things of A
This changes the completely_scalarize_record path to also work on arrays (thus
allowing records containing arrays, etc.). This just required extending the
existing type_consists_of_records_p and completely_scalarize_record methods
to handle things of ARRAY_TYPE as well as RECORD_TYPE. Hence, I rena
25 matches
Mail list logo
