On Fri, 14 May 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> Hi Richi,
>
> On 2021/4/21 19:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2021/4/15 19:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> >>>
> Thanks,
>
> On 2021/4/14
Hi Richi,
On 2021/4/21 19:54, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/4/15 19:34, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>>>
Thanks,
On 2021/4/14 14:41, Richard Biener wrote:
>> "#538,#235,#234,#233" will all
On 4/14/2021 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
Hi,
On 2021/3/26 15:35, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Also we already have a sinking pass on RTL which even computes
a proper PRE on the reverse graph - -fgcse-sm aka store-motion.c.
I'm not sure wheth
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/4/15 19:34, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> On 2021/4/14 14:41, Richard Biener wrote:
> "#538,#235,#234,#233" will all be sunk from bb 35 to bb 37 by rtl-sink,
> but it m
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> On 2021/4/14 14:41, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> "#538,#235,#234,#233" will all be sunk from bb 35 to bb 37 by rtl-sink,
> >> but it moves #538 first, then #235, there is strong dependency here. It
> >> seemsdoesn't like the LCM framework that c
Thanks,
On 2021/4/14 14:41, Richard Biener wrote:
>> "#538,#235,#234,#233" will all be sunk from bb 35 to bb 37 by rtl-sink,
>> but it moves #538 first, then #235, there is strong dependency here. It
>> seemsdoesn't like the LCM framework that could solve all and do the
>> delete-insert in one ite
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021/3/26 15:35, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> Also we already have a sinking pass on RTL which even computes
> >> a proper PRE on the reverse graph - -fgcse-sm aka store-motion.c.
> >> I'm not sure whether this deals with non-stores
Hi,
On 2021/3/26 15:35, Xionghu Luo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Also we already have a sinking pass on RTL which even computes
>> a proper PRE on the reverse graph - -fgcse-sm aka store-motion.c.
>> I'm not sure whether this deals with non-stores but the
>> LCM machinery definitely can handle arbitr
Hi, sorry for late response,
On 2021/3/23 16:50, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> It definitely should be before uncprop (but context stops there). And yes,
>>> re-running passes isn't the very, very best thing to do without explaining
>>> it cannot be done in other ways. Not for late stage 3 anyway.
>>>
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/12/23 00:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On December 21, 2020 10:03:43 AM GMT+01:00, Xiong Hu Luo
> > wrote:
> >> Here comes another case that requires run a pass once more, as this is
> >> not the common suggested direction to solve problems,
On 2020/12/23 00:53, Richard Biener wrote:
On December 21, 2020 10:03:43 AM GMT+01:00, Xiong Hu Luo
wrote:
Here comes another case that requires run a pass once more, as this is
not the common suggested direction to solve problems, not quite sure
whether it is still a reasonble fix here. So
On December 21, 2020 10:03:43 AM GMT+01:00, Xiong Hu Luo
wrote:
>Here comes another case that requires run a pass once more, as this is
>not the common suggested direction to solve problems, not quite sure
>whether it is still a reasonble fix here. Source code is something
>like:
>
>ref = ip + *
Here comes another case that requires run a pass once more, as this is
not the common suggested direction to solve problems, not quite sure
whether it is still a reasonble fix here. Source code is something like:
ref = ip + *hslot;
while (ip < in_end - 2) {
unsigned int len = 2;
len++;
fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
