Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-06-02 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/31/2015 08:20 PM, Kugan wrote: On 30/05/15 14:54, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/29/2015 12:32 AM, Kugan wrote: PR target/65768 * cprop.c (try_replace_reg): Check cost of constants before propagating. I should have also noted, fresh bootstrap & regression test is needed too. Than

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-05-31 Thread Kugan
On 30/05/15 14:54, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/29/2015 12:32 AM, Kugan wrote: > > PR target/65768 > * cprop.c (try_replace_reg): Check cost of constants before > propagating. >>> I should have also noted, fresh bootstrap & regression test is needed >>> too. >> >> Thanks Jeff

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-05-29 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/29/2015 12:32 AM, Kugan wrote: PR target/65768 * cprop.c (try_replace_reg): Check cost of constants before propagating. I should have also noted, fresh bootstrap & regression test is needed too. Thanks Jeff for the comments. I did a fresh bootstrap and regression testing on x8

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-05-28 Thread Kugan
On 29/05/15 07:31, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/13/2015 11:46 PM, Kugan wrote: >> ping? >> >> Thanks, >> Kugan >> >> On 15/04/15 17:53, Kugan wrote: >>> As mentioned in PR65768, ARM gcc generates suboptimal code for constant >>> Uses in loop. Part of the reason is cprop is undoing what loop invariant

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-05-28 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/13/2015 11:46 PM, Kugan wrote: ping? Thanks, Kugan On 15/04/15 17:53, Kugan wrote: As mentioned in PR65768, ARM gcc generates suboptimal code for constant Uses in loop. Part of the reason is cprop is undoing what loop invariant code motion did. Zhenqiang posted a patch at to fix this ba

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-05-28 Thread Jeff Law
I've CC'd Ilya as he's been looking at related issues in the x86 backend, but from the other direction and I think he ought to be aware of the interactions of this potential change and his work. In particular depending on the costing in the x86 backend we may see fewer propagations of GOTOFF c

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-05-13 Thread Kugan
ping? Thanks, Kugan On 15/04/15 17:53, Kugan wrote: > As mentioned in PR65768, ARM gcc generates suboptimal code for constant > Uses in loop. Part of the reason is cprop is undoing what loop invariant > code motion did. > > Zhenqiang posted a patch at to fix this based on rtx costs: > https://gc

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-04-16 Thread Kugan
On 15/04/15 21:18, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Steven Bosscher > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Kugan wrote: >>> 2015-04-15 Kugan Vivekanandarajah < > >>> Zhenqiang Chen <> >>> >>> PR target/65768 >>> * cprop.c (try_replac

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-04-15 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Kugan wrote: >> 2015-04-15 Kugan Vivekanandarajah < > >> Zhenqiang Chen <> >> >> PR target/65768 >> * cprop.c (try_replace_reg): Check cost of constants before >> propagating

Re: [PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-04-15 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Kugan wrote: > 2015-04-15 Kugan Vivekanandarajah < > > Zhenqiang Chen <> > > PR target/65768 > * cprop.c (try_replace_reg): Check cost of constants before > propagating. > + > + /* For CONSTANT_P (to), loop2_invariant pass might ho

[PR65768] Check rtx_cost when propagating constant

2015-04-15 Thread Kugan
As mentioned in PR65768, ARM gcc generates suboptimal code for constant Uses in loop. Part of the reason is cprop is undoing what loop invariant code motion did. Zhenqiang posted a patch at to fix this based on rtx costs: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01321.html I cleaned it up an