On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 08:15:36AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > > What is wrong with DF?
> > > >
> > > > It's slow and memory hungry?
> > >
> > > Very true, of course. But can this be significantly better?
> >
> > That's a good questi
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > > > What is wrong with DF?
> > >
> > > It's slow and memory hungry?
> >
> > Very true, of course. But can this be significantly better?
>
> That's a good question worth investigating in my opinion, because DF didn't
> quite achieve its in
On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 15:16 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:40:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 15:07 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +02
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I think at least one step would be uncontroversical(?), namely moving
> the RTL expansion "magic"
> up to a GIMPLE pass. Where the "magic" would be to turn
> GIMPLE stmts not directly expandable via an existing optab into
> GIMPLE that
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I also wonder how difficult it would be to get recog to recognise
> gimple :-)
Since recog recognises single (rtl) insns: hard to impossible?
Segher
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:40:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 15:07 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > > But being stuck with something me
Hi!
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:29:34AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 07:07 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Most of expand is *other stuff*. Expand does a *lot* of things that are
> > actually changing the code. And much of that is not done anywhere else
> > either yet, so t
On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 16:32 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jeff Law via Gcc-patches writes:
> > On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 15:07 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
Jeff Law via Gcc-patches writes:
> On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 15:07 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Segher Boessenkool
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > > > But being stuck with something means no progress... I know
>
> > > What is wrong with DF?
> >
> > It's slow and memory hungry?
>
> Very true, of course. But can this be significantly better?
That's a good question worth investigating in my opinion, because DF didn't
quite achieve its initial goal of replacing all the custom liveness analysis
passes onl
On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 15:07 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > But being stuck with something means no progress... I know
> > > > > very well it's 100 times harder
On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 07:07 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > I think at least one step would be uncontroversical(?), namely moving
> > the RTL expansion "magic"
> > up to a GIMPLE pass. Where the "magic" would be to turn
> > GIMPLE stmts not directly expandable via an existing optab into
>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 03:07:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > But being stuck with something means no progress... I know
> > > > > very well it's 100 t
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:52 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > But being stuck with something means no progress... I know
> > > > very well it's 100 times harder to get rid of something than to
> > > > add something new ontop.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > But being stuck with something means no progress... I know
> > > very well it's 100 times harder to get rid of something than to
> > > add something new ontop.
> >
> > Well, what progress do you expect to make? After expand tha
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:07 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:52:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:17 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:32:37AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:52:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:17 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:32:37AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:31 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:50 -0500,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:17 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:32:37AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:31 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:50 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > > > In some ways it feels like it would be
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:32:37AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:31 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:50 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > > In some ways it feels like it would be easier to resurrect RTL SSA :-)
> > >
> > > Why was RTL SSA abandoned
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:31 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:50 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> > > > In some ways it feels like it would be easier to resurrect RTL SSA :-)
> >
> > Why was RTL SSA abandoned?
> >
> > It might well work to keep everything in SSA form all the
On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:50 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > > In some ways it feels like it would be easier to resurrect RTL SSA :-)
>
> Why was RTL SSA abandoned?
>
> It might well work to keep everything in SSA form all the way to RA.
> Hrm, that doesn't sound bad at all :-)
>
> (The P
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:58:38AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:26 AM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
> > Richard Biener via Gcc-patches writes:
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:56:34AM +0200, Richard
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:26 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Richard Biener via Gcc-patches writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:56:34AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:51 PM S
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches writes:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:56:34AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
>> > wrote:
>> > > > Yeah well, but RTL is not in SSA form
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:38 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:56:34AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > > Yeah well, but RTL is not in SSA form
> > >
> > > "Webs" are not the *same* as SSA, in a
Hi!
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:56:34AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> > > Yeah well, but RTL is not in SSA form
> >
> > "Webs" are not the *same* as SSA, in a few crucial ways; but they serve
> > similar purposes: they both make code
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:53:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:46 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:33:45AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:53:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:46 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:33:45AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:53:08AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:46 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:33:45AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:23 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > > > On a general note, we shouldn't de
On 4/17/20 1:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Yeah well, but RTL is not in SSA form and there's no RTL IL verification
in place to track degradation. And we even work in the opposite way
when expanding to RTL from SSA, coalescing as much as we can ...
Which is itself problematic, introducing unne
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:46 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:33:45AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:23 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > > On a general note, we shouldn't depend on some pass that may or may not
> > > clean up the mess we make, when
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:33:45AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:23 PM Segher Boessenkool
> > On a general note, we shouldn't depend on some pass that may or may not
> > clean up the mess we make, when we could just avoid making a mess in the
> > first place.
>
> True -
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:23 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:21:03AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > As you may know, we have loop unroll pass in RTL which was introduced a
> > > few
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> Hi Jiufu,
>
> Just reviewing random things as I see them...
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 09:56:00AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> This patch only supports simple loops: one exit edge with one major basic
>> block.
>
> That is fine for a proof-of-concept, but will need fi
Segher Boessenkool writes:
Hi,
Thanks for all your comments!
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:21:03AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>> > As you may know, we have loop unroll pass in RTL which was introduced a few
>> > ye
on 2020/4/15 下午2:21, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you may know, we have loop unroll pass in RTL which was introduced a few
>> years ago, and works for a long time. Currently, this unroller is using th
Hi!
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 08:21:03AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > As you may know, we have loop unroll pass in RTL which was introduced a few
> > years ago, and works for a long time. Currently, this unroller is using the
Hi Jiufu,
Just reviewing random things as I see them...
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 09:56:00AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> This patch only supports simple loops: one exit edge with one major basic
> block.
That is fine for a proof-of-concept, but will need fixing perhaps.
> --- a/gcc/common.opt
> ++
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:56 AM Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you may know, we have loop unroll pass in RTL which was introduced a few
> years ago, and works for a long time. Currently, this unroller is using the
> pseudos in the original body, and then the pseudos are written m
Hi,
As you may know, we have loop unroll pass in RTL which was introduced a few
years ago, and works for a long time. Currently, this unroller is using the
pseudos in the original body, and then the pseudos are written multiple times.
It would be a good idea to create new pseudos for those dupli
40 matches
Mail list logo
