On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 5:21 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/3/23 01:04, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:08 PM Manolis Tsamis
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm pinging to discuss again if we want to move this forward for GCC14.
> >>
> >> I did some testing again and I
On 8/3/23 01:04, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:08 PM Manolis Tsamis wrote:
Hi all,
I'm pinging to discuss again if we want to move this forward for GCC14.
I did some testing again and I haven't been able to find obvious
regressions, including testing the code from PR86270
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:08 PM Manolis Tsamis wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm pinging to discuss again if we want to move this forward for GCC14.
>
> I did some testing again and I haven't been able to find obvious
> regressions, including testing the code from PR86270 and PR70359 that
> Richard mentio
Hi all,
I'm pinging to discuss again if we want to move this forward for GCC14.
I did some testing again and I haven't been able to find obvious
regressions, including testing the code from PR86270 and PR70359 that
Richard mentioned.
I still believe that zero can be considered a special case even
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 4:30 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/25/23 01:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:05 AM Jeff Law wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/24/23 02:06, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:01 PM Philipp Tomsich
> >>> wrote:
On 4/25/23 01:21, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:05 AM Jeff Law wrote
On 4/24/23 02:06, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:01 PM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
Any guidance on the next steps for this patch?
I think we want to perform this tran
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:05 AM Jeff Law wrote
>
>
>
>
> On 4/24/23 02:06, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:01 PM Philipp Tomsich
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Any guidance on the next steps for this patch?
> >
> > I think we want to perform this transform later, in par
On 4/24/23 02:06, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:01 PM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
Any guidance on the next steps for this patch?
I think we want to perform this transform later, in particular when
the test is a loop exit test we do not want to do it as it p
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:01 PM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
>
> Any guidance on the next steps for this patch?
I think we want to perform this transform later, in particular when
the test is a loop
exit test we do not want to do it as it prevents coalescing of the IV
on the backedge
at out-of-SSA tim
Any guidance on the next steps for this patch?
I believe that we answered all open questions, but may have missed something.
With trunk open for new development, we would like to revise and land this…
Thanks,
Philipp.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 15:02, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023
On 3/20/23 08:01, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 10:31 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:27 PM Manolis Tsamis wrote:
For this C testcase:
void g();
void f(unsigned int *a)
{
if (++*a == 1)
g();
}
GCC will currently emit a comparison with 1 by usi
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 10:31 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:27 PM Manolis Tsamis
> wrote:
> >
> > For this C testcase:
> >
> > void g();
> > void f(unsigned int *a)
> > {
> > if (++*a == 1)
> > g();
> > }
> >
> > GCC will currently emit a comparison with 1 by using
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 6:16 AM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 at 09:31, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:27 PM Manolis Tsamis
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > For this C testcase:
> > >
> > > void g();
> > > void f(unsigned int *a)
> > > {
> > > if (++*a == 1)
On 3/17/23 04:31, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:27 PM Manolis Tsamis wrote:
For this C testcase:
void g();
void f(unsigned int *a)
{
if (++*a == 1)
g();
}
GCC will currently emit a comparison with 1 by using the value
of *a after the increment. This can be improved
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 2:15 PM Philipp Tomsich
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 at 09:31, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:27 PM Manolis Tsamis
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > For this C testcase:
> > >
> > > void g();
> > > void f(unsigned int *a)
> > > {
> > > if (++*a == 1)
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 at 09:31, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:27 PM Manolis Tsamis
> wrote:
> >
> > For this C testcase:
> >
> > void g();
> > void f(unsigned int *a)
> > {
> > if (++*a == 1)
> > g();
> > }
> >
> > GCC will currently emit a comparison with 1 by using th
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:27 PM Manolis Tsamis wrote:
>
> For this C testcase:
>
> void g();
> void f(unsigned int *a)
> {
> if (++*a == 1)
> g();
> }
>
> GCC will currently emit a comparison with 1 by using the value
> of *a after the increment. This can be improved by comparing
> against 0
Just to add a bit more color on this one...
It was originally observed (and isolated from)
_ZN11xalanc_1_1027XalanReferenceCountedObject12addReferenceEPS0_ and
reproduces both for AArch64 and RISC-V.
The basic block (annotated with dynamic instructions executed and
percentage of total dynamic inst
On 3/16/23 09:27, Manolis Tsamis wrote:
For this C testcase:
void g();
void f(unsigned int *a)
{
if (++*a == 1)
g();
}
GCC will currently emit a comparison with 1 by using the value
of *a after the increment. This can be improved by comparing
against 0 and using the value before the
For this C testcase:
void g();
void f(unsigned int *a)
{
if (++*a == 1)
g();
}
GCC will currently emit a comparison with 1 by using the value
of *a after the increment. This can be improved by comparing
against 0 and using the value before the increment. As a result
there is a potentially s
20 matches
Mail list logo
