Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target Microblaze)
Automotive_qsort1(4.03%), Office_ispell(4.29%), Office_stringsearch1(3.5%).
Telecom_adpcm_d( 1.37
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 12:48 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path
On 01/18/2016 11:27 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Ajit, can you confirm which of adpcm_code or adpcm_decode where
path splitting is showing a gain? I suspect it's the former but
would like to make sure so that I can adjust the heuristics
properly.
I'd still like to have this answered when you
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 01/04/2016 07:32 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
-Original Message- From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 12:06 PM To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal;
Richard Biener Cc
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 4:33 AM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path
l; Shail Aditya Gupta;
> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala Subject: Re:
> [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
> representation
>
> On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>>
>> Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target Microblaze)
>>
Subject: Re:
[Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target Microblaze)
Automotive_qsort1(4.03%), Office_ispell(4.29%),
Office_stringsearch1(3.5%). Telecom_adpcm_d( 1.37
On 01/14/2016 01:55 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
[ Replying to myself again, mostly to make sure we've got these thoughts
in the archives. ]
Anyway, going back to adpcm_decode, we do end up splitting this path:
# vpdiff_12 = PHI
if (sign_41 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
;;succ:
On 01/13/2016 01:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
I'm going to focus on adpcm for the moment, in particular adpcm_coder.
It appears the key blocks are:
;; basic block 14, loop depth 1, count 0, freq 9100, maybe hot
;;prev block 13, next block 15, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE)
;;pred: 12 [100.0
On 01/13/2016 01:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
I'm going to focus on adpcm for the moment, in particular adpcm_coder.
It appears the key blocks are:
Looking at adpcm_decoder we have the same idiom as in adpcm_coder:
if (bufferstep_79 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
;;succ: 6 [50.0%] (
On 01/04/2016 07:32 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
I am consistently getting the gains for office_ispell and office_stringsearch1,
telcom_adpcm_d. I ran it again today and we see gains in the same bench mark
tests
with the split path changes.
What functions are being affected that in turn imp
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 12:06 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path
On 12/25/2015 01:40 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Hello Jeff:
I am out on vacation till 3rd Jan 2016.
Is it okay If I respond on the below once I am back in office.
Yes. I'm on vacation until then as well.
Jeff
GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>
> Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target
On 12/11/2015 02:11 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks (Target Microblaze)
Automotive_qsort1(4.03%), Office_ispell(4.29%), Office_stringsearch1(3.5%).
Telecom_adpcm_d( 1.37%), ospfv2_lite(1.35%).
I'm having a real tough time reproducing any of these results. In fact,
I'm
> On 12/11/2015 03:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This pass is now enabled by default with -Os but has no limits on
> >>> the amount of stmts it copies.
> >>
> >> The more statements i
On 12/11/2015 03:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/03/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This pass is now enabled by default with -Os but has no limits on the
amount of
stmts it copies.
The more statements it copies, the more likely it is
GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli
Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: RE: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behal
Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
> Hello Jeff:
>
> Here is more of a data you have asked for.
>
> SPEC FP benchmarks.
> a) No Path Splitting + tracer ena
Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:20 AM
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on
l Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:20 AM
To: Richard Biener
Cc: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on
On 12/11/2015 03:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/03/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This pass is now enabled by default with -Os but has no limits on the
amount of
stmts it copies.
The more statements it copies, the more likely it is
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> This pass is now enabled by default with -Os but has no limits on the
>> amount of
>> stmts it copies.
>
> The more statements it copies, the more likely it is that the path spitting
> will turn
itya Gupta;
Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 12/03/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> This pass is now enabled by default with -Os but has no limits on the
> amount of stmts it copies
On 12/03/2015 07:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, some EEMBC one.
Btw, the testcase that was added shows
if (xc < xm)
{
xk = (unsigned char) (xc < xy ? xc : xy);
}
else
{
xk = (unsigned char) (xm < xy ? xm : xy);
}
On 12/03/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This pass is now enabled by default with -Os but has no limits on the amount of
stmts it copies.
The more statements it copies, the more likely it is that the path
spitting will turn out to be useful! It's counter-intuitive.
The primary benefit AF
On 12/03/2015 07:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This pass is now enabled by default with -Os but has no limits on the amount of
stmts it copies. It also will make all loops with this shape have at least two
exits (if the resulting loop will be disambiguated the inner loop will
have two exits).
Ha
{
xk = (unsigned char) (xm < xy ? xm : xy);
}
which might be better handled by phiopt transforming it into
xk = MIN (xc, MIN (xm, xy))
phiopt1 sees (hooray to GENERIC folding)
xc_26 = ~xr_21;
xm_27 = ~xg_23;
xy_28 = ~xb_25;
if (xr_21 > xg_23)
goto ;
led by
default.
What closed source benchmark was this transform invented for?
Richard.
>
>
>
> commit c1891376e5dcc99ad8be2d22f9551c03f9bb2729
> Author: Jeff Law
> Date: Fri Nov 13 16:29:34 2015 -0700
>
> [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting
-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 14/11/15 00:35, Jeff Law wrote:
> Anyway, bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> Installed on the trunk.
> [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
> re
On 14/11/15 00:35, Jeff Law wrote:
Anyway, bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Installed on the trunk.
[Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
* Makefile.in (OBJS): Add gimple-ssa-split-paths.o
15 -0700
[Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
* Makefile.in (OBJS): Add gimple-ssa-split-paths.o
* common.opt (-fsplit-paths): New flag controlling path splitting.
* doc/invoke.texi (fsplit-paths): Document.
* opts.c (de
On 11/13/2015 11:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
BTW Do we have an API for indicating that new blocks have been added to
a loop? If so, then we can likely drop the LOOPS_NEED_FIXUP.
Please. It's called add_to_loop or so.
Haha, the block duplication code was handling this already. So in
theor
On November 13, 2015 5:26:01 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 11/13/2015 03:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
>>> index 34d2356..6613e83 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/Makefile.in
>>> +++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
>>> @@ -1474,6 +1474,7 @@ OBJS = \
>>> tree-
On 11/13/2015 03:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index 34d2356..6613e83 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
@@ -1474,6 +1474,7 @@ OBJS = \
tree-ssa-loop.o \
tree-ssa-math-opts.o \
tree-ssa-operands.o \
+
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 3:28 AM
To: Richard Biener
Cc: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 11:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 11/12/2015 10:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
But IIRC you mentioned it should enable vectorization or so? In this
case
that's obviously too late.
>>>
>>> The opposite. Path splitting
On 11/12/2015 11:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
But IIRC you mentioned it should enable vectorization or so? In this
case
that's obviously too late.
The opposite. Path splitting interferes with if-conversion &
vectorization. Path splitting mucks up the CFG eno
On 11/12/2015 12:40 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On November 12, 2015 7:32:57 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law
wrote:
On 11/12/2015 10:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
But IIRC you mentioned it should enable vectorization or so?
In
this
case that's obviously too late.
The opposite. Path splitting interferes with
On November 12, 2015 7:32:57 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 11/12/2015 10:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> But IIRC you mentioned it should enable vectorization or so? In
>this
>>> case
>>> that's obviously too late.
>> The opposite. Path splitting interferes with if-conversion &
>> vectorization.
On 11/12/2015 10:05 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
But IIRC you mentioned it should enable vectorization or so? In this
case
that's obviously too late.
The opposite. Path splitting interferes with if-conversion &
vectorization. Path splitting mucks up the CFG enough that
if-conversion won't fire and as
On 11/12/2015 03:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/04/2015 11:36 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/passes.def b/gcc/passes.def
index 6b66f8f..20ddf3d 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.def
+++ b/gcc/passes.def
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ along with GC
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/04/2015 11:36 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/passes.def b/gcc/passes.def
>>> index 6b66f8f..20ddf3d 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/passes.def
>>> +++ b/gcc/passes.def
>>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.
On 09/04/2015 11:36 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/passes.def b/gcc/passes.def
index 6b66f8f..20ddf3d 100644
--- a/gcc/passes.def
+++ b/gcc/passes.def
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
NEXT_PASS (pass_ccp);
/* After CCP we re
Subject: Re:
[Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 08/26/2015 11:29 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Thanks. The following testcase testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ifc-5.c
void dct_unquantize_h263_inter_c (short *block, int n, int qscale,
int nCoeffs) { int i
mber 12, 2015 4:09 PM
To: Jeff Law; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: RE: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:10 AM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path
On 08/26/2015 11:29 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Thanks. The following testcase testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ifc-5.c
void dct_unquantize_h263_inter_c (short *block, int n, int qscale,
int nCoeffs) { int i, level, qmul, qadd;
qadd = (qscale - 1) | 1; qmul = qscale << 1;
for (i = 0; i <= nCoeffs;
All:
Thanks Jeff for the review comments.
The patch attached incorporate all the review comments given below.
Bootstrapped on i386 and Microblaze and the Deja GNU tests for Microblaze
results looks fine.
[Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on
tree ssa representation
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:19 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path
On 08/20/2015 09:38 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Bootstrapping with i386 and Microblaze target works fine. No
regression is seen in Deja GNU tests for Microblaze. There are lesser
failures. Mibench/EEMBC benchmarks were run for Microblaze target and
the gain of 9.3% is seen in rgbcmy_lite the
Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On 08/15/2015 11:01 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>
>
> From cf2b64cc1d6623424d770f2a9ea257eb7e58e887 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> 2001
> From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:19:14 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] [Patch,tree-optimi
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:13 AM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path
On 08/15/2015 11:01 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
From cf2b64cc1d6623424d770f2a9ea257eb7e58e887 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:19:14 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on
tree ssa representation.
Added
On 08/15/2015 11:01 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
All:
Please find the updated patch with suggestion and feedback
incorporated.
Thanks Jeff and Richard for the review comments.
Following changes were done based on the feedback on RFC comments.
and the review for the previous patch.
1. Both tr
hard Biener; Jeff Law
Cc: GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida;
Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: RE: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
-Original Message-
From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
l...@redhat.com; GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on
> tree ssa representation
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> wrote:
>
l; Shail Aditya Gupta;
> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree
> ssa representation
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> F
l...@redhat.com; GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta;
> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on
> tree ssa representation
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> wrote:
>>
l; Shail Aditya Gupta;
> Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree
> ssa representation
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> The below patch added a new
Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
* gcc/common.opt: Add the new flag ftree-path-split.
All options need documenting in invoke.texi.
Sure.
+#include "tm.h"
gt; 6. Added 2 tests.
> a) compilation check tests.
>b) execution tests.
> 7. Refactoring of the code for the feasibility check and finding the join
> block same as loop latch node.
>
> [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
> re
new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
> * gcc/common.opt: Add the new flag ftree-path-split.
>>All options need documenting in invoke.texi.
Sure.
> +#include "tm.h"
>>Why? Does some other header depe
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
> * gcc/common.opt: Add the new flag ftree-path-split.
All options need documenting in invoke.texi.
> +#include "tm.h"
Why? Does some other header depend on this, or are you using a target
macro?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.c
sday, June 30, 2015 1:46 PM
To: l...@redhat.com; GCC Patches
Cc: Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
All:
The below patch added a new path Splitting optimization pass on
gt; 6. Added 2 tests.
> a) compilation check tests.
>b) execution tests.
> 7. Refactoring of the code for the feasibility check and finding the join
> block same as loop latch node.
>
> [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
> re
tests.
>b) execution tests.
> 7. Refactoring of the code for the feasibility check and finding the join
> block same as loop latch node.
>
> [Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
> representation.
>
> Added a new pass on path spli
On June 30, 2015 12:38:13 PM GMT+02:00, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>>6. Added 2 tests.
>>a) compilation check tests.
>> b) execution tests.
>
>>>The 2 tests seem to be identical, so why do you have both?
>>>Also, please remove cleanup-tree-dump, this is now done
>automatically.
>
>The test
]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation
On June 30, 2015 10:16:01 AM GMT+02:00, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>All:
>
>The below patch added a new path Splitting optimization pass on SSA
>representation. The Path Splitting optimization Pass moves the join
>block
On June 30, 2015 10:16:01 AM GMT+02:00, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>All:
>
>The below patch added a new path Splitting optimization pass on SSA
>representation. The Path Splitting optimization
>Pass moves the join block of if-then-else same as loop latch to its
>predecessors and get merged with th
. Added 2 tests.
a) compilation check tests.
b) execution tests.
7. Refactoring of the code for the feasibility check and finding the join block
same as loop latch node.
[Patch,tree-optimization]: Add new path Splitting pass on tree ssa
representation.
Added a new pass on
71 matches
Mail list logo
