On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2019/7/22 下午3:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
> >>
> >> I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have th
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:18:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
> > >
> > > I think we should have a new iv f
Hi Segher,
on 2019/7/23 上午5:43, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:18:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
>>>
>>> I think we should have a new iv for j
on 2019/7/22 下午3:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
>>
>> I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
>> same starting value and step and type as another i
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:18:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
> >
> > I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
> > same starting value a
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
>
> I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
> same starting value and step and type as another iv).
>
> Has this been considered?
I was also sugg
Hi Segher,
on 2019/7/22 下午2:26, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
>
> I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
> same starting value and step and type as another iv).
>
> Has this been considered?
>
>
Hi!
(Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
same starting value and step and type as another iv).
Has this been considered?
Segher
Hi Bin,
on 2019/7/21 上午11:07, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:47 PM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is the following patch after
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00910.html
>>
>> Main steps:
>> 1) Identify the doloop cmp type iv use and record its bind_ca
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:47 PM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is the following patch after
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00910.html
>
> Main steps:
> 1) Identify the doloop cmp type iv use and record its bind_cand (explain it
> later).
> 2) Set zero cost for pairs b
Hi,
Sorry, the previous patch is incomplete.
New one attached. Sorry for inconvenience.
on 2019/6/20 下午8:08, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Segher,
>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:47:34PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> +/* Return true if count register for branch is supported. */
>>> +
>>> +static bool
>>
Hi Segher,
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:47:34PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> +/* Return true if count register for branch is supported. */
>> +
>> +static bool
>> +rs6000_have_count_reg_decr_p ()
>> +{
>> + return flag_branch_on_count_reg;
>> +}
>
> rs6000 unconditionally supports these instructi
Hi Kewen,
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:47:34PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> +/* Return true if count register for branch is supported. */
> +
> +static bool
> +rs6000_have_count_reg_decr_p ()
> +{
> + return flag_branch_on_count_reg;
> +}
rs6000 unconditionally supports these instructions, not just
Hi all,
This is the following patch after
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-06/msg00910.html
Main steps:
1) Identify the doloop cmp type iv use and record its bind_cand (explain it
later).
2) Set zero cost for pairs between this use and any iv cand.
3) IV cand set selecting algorith
14 matches
Mail list logo
