On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:49:46AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 02:56 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:57:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>I think the lack of test coverage is something we'll want to address.
> >
> >Building and running the compiler, the various
On 09/09/2016 02:56 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:57:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
I think the lack of test coverage is something we'll want to address.
Building and running the compiler, the various target libraries, and the
testsuite is more than enough coverage for
On 09/09/2016 10:56 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:57:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
I think the lack of test coverage is something we'll want to address.
Building and running the compiler, the various target libraries, and the
testsuite is more than enough coverage for
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:57:32PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> I think the lack of test coverage is something we'll want to address.
Building and running the compiler, the various target libraries, and the
testsuite is more than enough coverage for correctness in my opinion --
I cannot make up anythi
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 12:19:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>Does this impact the compile time computation complexity issue that was
> >>raised elsewhere?
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean here either, sorry. It is all O(NM) with N
> >the number of BBs and M the number of components (and assuming
On 08/26/2016 07:03 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 08/01/2016 03:42 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This is the second version. Concern was renamed to component, and all
other comments were addressed (I hope).
Not really, I'm afraid. There still seems to be no detailed explanation
of the algorithm
On 09/09/2016 09:40 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
So I think sticking with this as a design decision makes sense -- does
it impact the issue around running a particular component's prologue
more than once?
I don't follow, sorry; could you rephrase?
Nevermind -- my question has been resolved.
On 09/09/2016 10:57 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:48:30AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
and even allows them to be executed more than once, if that is
cheaper.
This is the part that I'm still struggling with.
The usual example:
1
|\
| \
| 2
| /
|/
3
|\
| \
| 4
| /
|/
5
On 09/09/2016 10:49 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:59:03AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/09/2016 09:17 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:41:37AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So can you expand on the malloc example a bit -- I'm pretty sure I
understand
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:48:30AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> and even allows them to be executed more than once, if that is
> >cheaper.
> This is the part that I'm still struggling with.
The usual example:
1
|\
| \
| 2
| /
|/
3
|\
| \
| 4
| /
|/
5
where 2 and 4 need a certain prologue component
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:59:03AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 09:17 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:41:37AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>So can you expand on the malloc example a bit -- I'm pretty sure I
> >>understand what you're trying to do, but a concrete e
On 09/09/2016 09:28 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Segher's code essentially allows individual components of the prologue
to sink to different points within the function rather than forcing the
prologue to be sunk as an atomic unit.
It also allows prologue an epilogue components to be placed in
On 09/09/2016 09:17 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:41:37AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
So can you expand on the malloc example a bit -- I'm pretty sure I
understand what you're trying to do, but a concrete example may help
Bernd and be useful for archival purposes.
Sure, b
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:26:39AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>I think one of the questions (and I haven't looked through the whole
> >>thread yet to see if it's answered) is why the basic shrink-wrapping
> >>algorithm can't be applied to each of the prologue components -- though
> >>you may have an
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:58:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >And that comment puzzles me. Surely prologue and epilogue are executed
> >only once currently, so how does frequency come into it? Again - please
> >provide an example.
> Right, they're executed once currently. But the prologue could be
On 09/09/2016 12:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Thanks for looking at the patches Jeff.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:28:59AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
Right. Essentially Segher's patch introduces the concept of prologue
components that are independent of each other and which can be
shrink-wrapped
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:41:37AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> So can you expand on the malloc example a bit -- I'm pretty sure I
> understand what you're trying to do, but a concrete example may help
> Bernd and be useful for archival purposes.
Sure, but it's big (which is the problem :-) )
> I a
Thanks for looking at the patches Jeff.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:28:59AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Right. Essentially Segher's patch introduces the concept of prologue
> components that are independent of each other and which can be
> shrink-wrapped separately. The degree of independence is h
On 08/26/2016 09:03 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 08/26/2016 04:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The head comment starts with
+/* Separate shrink-wrapping
+
+ Instead of putting all of the prologue and epilogue in one spot, we
+ can put parts of it in places where those components are execute
On 08/26/2016 10:27 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:03:34PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 08/26/2016 04:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The head comment starts with
+/* Separate shrink-wrapping
+
+ Instead of putting all of the prologue and epilogue in one spot, we
On 08/30/2016 06:31 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
And that comment puzzles me. Surely prologue and epilogue are executed only
once currently, so how does frequency come into it? Again - please provide an
example.
int some_global;
int foo (void) {
if
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> And that comment puzzles me. Surely prologue and epilogue are executed only
> once currently, so how does frequency come into it? Again - please provide an
> example.
int some_global;
int foo (void) {
if (!some_global) {
call_this();
call
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:03:34PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/26/2016 04:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >The head comment starts with
> >
> >+/* Separate shrink-wrapping
> >+
> >+ Instead of putting all of the prologue and epilogue in one spot, we
> >+ can put parts of it in places
On 08/26/2016 04:50 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The head comment starts with
+/* Separate shrink-wrapping
+
+ Instead of putting all of the prologue and epilogue in one spot, we
+ can put parts of it in places where those components are executed less
+ frequently.
and that is the long a
Hi Bernd,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:03:43PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Not really, I'm afraid. There still seems to be no detailed explanation
> of the algorithm. Instead, there is a vague outline
Did you read the description of 8/9? If you think any of that needs to
be in the code, please
On 08/26/2016 03:48 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
I'm nervous about the build_random_cfg function: randomness in
selftests seems like a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we can use
it to fuzz-test an optimization to rapidly gain a lot of coverage. On
the other hand, does every host generate the s
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 15:03 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/01/2016 03:42 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > This is the second version. Concern was renamed to component, and
> > all
> > other comments were addressed (I hope).
>
> Not really, I'm afraid. There still seems to be no detailed
> e
On 08/01/2016 03:42 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This is the second version. Concern was renamed to component, and all
other comments were addressed (I hope).
Not really, I'm afraid. There still seems to be no detailed explanation
of the algorithm. Instead, there is a vague outline (which sh
Ping x2.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:05:34PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Ping.
>
>
> Segher
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:42:37AM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > This is the second version. Concern was renamed to component, and all
> > other comments were addressed (I hope). It
Ping.
Segher
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:42:37AM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> This is the second version. Concern was renamed to component, and all
> other comments were addressed (I hope). It still uses only two bitmaps
> for the component placement, but now they are called needs_compon
This is the second version. Concern was renamed to component, and all
other comments were addressed (I hope). It still uses only two bitmaps
for the component placement, but now they are called needs_components
and has_components, which hopefully is easier to follow. The "can this
prologue be mo
31 matches
Mail list logo
