Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 19/09/16 22:56, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:50 PM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 16/09/16 20:21, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:59 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 14/09/16 22:04, Richard
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:50 PM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
> On 16/09/16 20:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:59 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>
>>> On 14/09/16 22:04, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2
Hi Richard,
On 16/09/16 20:21, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:59 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 14/09/16 22:04, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
Hi,
On 19 August 2016 at 21:41, Richard Biener
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:59 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 14/09/16 22:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 19 August 2016 at 21:41, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Tue,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 11:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On September 14, 2016 11:36:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka
>> wrote:
+ /* Visit PHI stmts and discover any new VRs possible. */
+ gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
+ for (gphi_iter
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 14/09/16 22:04, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
Hi,
On 19 August 2016 at 21:41, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am now having -ftree-evrp which
On 09/14/2016 11:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On September 14, 2016 11:36:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
+ /* Visit PHI stmts and discover any new VRs possible. */
+ gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
+ for (gphi_iterator gpi = gsi_start_phis (bb);
+ !gsi_end_p (gpi); gsi_next (&gpi))
+
On September 14, 2016 11:36:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> + /* Visit PHI stmts and discover any new VRs possible. */
>> + gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
>> + for (gphi_iterator gpi = gsi_start_phis (bb);
>> + !gsi_end_p (gpi); gsi_next (&gpi))
>> +{
>> + gphi *phi = gpi.phi
> + /* Visit PHI stmts and discover any new VRs possible. */
> + gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
> + for (gphi_iterator gpi = gsi_start_phis (bb);
> + !gsi_end_p (gpi); gsi_next (&gpi))
> +{
> + gphi *phi = gpi.phi ();
> + tree lhs = PHI_RESULT (phi);
> + value_range vr_resul
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 August 2016 at 21:41, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> On 12/08/16 20:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:17 AM, kugan
wr
Ping ?
Thanks,
Kugan
On 23 August 2016 at 12:11, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 August 2016 at 21:41, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> On 12/08/16 20:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:17
Hi,
On 19 August 2016 at 21:41, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, kugan
> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 12/08/16 20:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:17 AM, kugan
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 12/08/16 20:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:17 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
>> index 8a292ed..7028cd4 100644
>> --- a/gcc/common.opt
>> +++ b/gcc/co
Hi Richard,
On 12/08/16 20:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:17 AM, kugan wrote:
[SNIP]
diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
index 8a292ed..7028cd4 100644
--- a/gcc/common.opt
+++ b/gcc/common.opt
@@ -2482,6 +2482,10 @@ ftree-vrp
Common Report Var(flag_tree_vrp) I
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:17 AM, kugan wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 28/07/16 21:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review.
It seems that in your pop_value_range yo
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 28/07/16 21:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
It seems that in your pop_value_range you assume you only pop one
range per BB - while that's likely true at the moment it will be a
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>>
>>
>> It seems that in your pop_value_range you assume you only pop one
>> range per BB - while that's likely true at the moment it will be a
>> limitation
>> in the future. You want to pop ranges until you
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
It seems that in your pop_value_range you assume you only pop one
range per BB - while that's likely true at the moment it will be a limitation
in the future. You want to pop ranges until you hit the NULL marker
in after_dom_children and unconditionally push
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:27 PM, kugan
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Riachard,
>
> Thanks for the review. Here is an updated patch with comments below.
>
>> +/* Restore/Pop all the old VRs maintained in the cond_stack. */
>> +
>> +void evrp_dom_walker::finalize_dom_walker ()
>> +{
>> + while (!cond_stack.is_e
Hi Riachard,
Thanks for the review. Here is an updated patch with comments below.
+/* Restore/Pop all the old VRs maintained in the cond_stack. */
+
+void evrp_dom_walker::finalize_dom_walker ()
+{
+ while (!cond_stack.is_empty ())
+{
+ tree var = cond_stack.last ().second;
+
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:10 PM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 18/07/16 21:51, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> On 15/07/16 17:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:0
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 18/07/16 21:51, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 15/07/16 17:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Why separate out early VRP from tree-vrp? Just a litt
On 07/19/2016 12:35 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing tree-vrp broken down a little -- it's quite
large and there's at least 4 distinct things going on in that
file.
1. ASSERT_EXPR handling.
2. Arithmetic on ranges
3. Propagation engine setup, callbacks, etc
4. Range management
On July 19, 2016 6:19:23 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 07/14/2016 10:52 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:45 PM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This patch adds a very simple early vrp implementation. This visits
>the
>>> basic blocks in the dominance order and
On 07/14/2016 10:52 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:45 PM, kugan
wrote:
Hi,
This patch adds a very simple early vrp implementation. This visits the
basic blocks in the dominance order and set the Value Ranges (VR) for
SSA_NAMEs in the scope. Use this VR to discover more
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 15/07/16 17:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 AM, kugan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
Why separate out early VRP from tree-vrp? Just a little curious.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is based on the discussio
Hi Andrew,
On 15/07/16 17:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 AM, kugan
wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Why separate out early VRP from tree-vrp? Just a little curious.
It is based on the discussion in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00069.html.
In summary, conclusion (based o
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> Why separate out early VRP from tree-vrp? Just a little curious.
>
>
> It is based on the discussion in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00069.html.
> In summary, conclusion (based on my understanding) was to implement a
> si
Hi Andrew,
Why separate out early VRP from tree-vrp? Just a little curious.
It is based on the discussion in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/msg00069.html.
In summary, conclusion (based on my understanding) was to implement a
simplified VRP algorithm that doesn't require ASSERT_EXPR inse
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:45 PM, kugan
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This patch adds a very simple early vrp implementation. This visits the
> basic blocks in the dominance order and set the Value Ranges (VR) for
>
> SSA_NAMEs in the scope. Use this VR to discover more VRs. Restore the old VR
> once the
Hi,
This patch adds a very simple early vrp implementation. This visits the
basic blocks in the dominance order and set the Value Ranges (VR) for
SSA_NAMEs in the scope. Use this VR to discover more VRs. Restore the
old VR once the scope is exit.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2
31 matches
Mail list logo
