On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> here is updated patch with the comments. The fortran failures turned out to
> be
> funny interaction in between this patch and my other change that hoped that
> loop closed SSA is closed on VOPs, but it is not.
>
> Regtested x86_64-linux, bootstra
Hi,
here is updated patch with the comments. The fortran failures turned out to be
funny interaction in between this patch and my other change that hoped that
loop closed SSA is closed on VOPs, but it is not.
Regtested x86_64-linux, bootstrap in progress, OK?
Honza
* tree-ssa-loop-niter
> > +static void
> > +maybe_lower_iteration_bound (struct loop *loop)
> > +{
> > + pointer_set_t *not_executed_last_iteration = pointer_set_create ();
> > + pointer_set_t *visited;
> > + struct nb_iter_bound *elt;
> > + bool found = false;
> > + VEC (basic_block, heap) *queue = NULL;
> > +
> >
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > What about the conservative variant of simply
> > > >
> > > > else
> > > > delta = double_int_one;
> > >
> > > I think it would be bad idea: it makes us to completely unroll one
> > > interation
> > > too many that bloats code for no
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem
> > > is that
> > > dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
> > > statement
> > > must
> > > > What about the conservative variant of simply
> > > >
> > > > else
> > > > delta = double_int_one;
> > >
> > > I think it would be bad idea: it makes us to completely unroll one
> > > interation
> > > too many that bloats code for no benefit. No optimization cancels the
>
> > > What about the conservative variant of simply
> > >
> > > else
> > > delta = double_int_one;
> >
> > I think it would be bad idea: it makes us to completely unroll one
> > interation
> > too many that bloats code for no benefit. No optimization cancels the path
> > in
> > CF
> > What about the conservative variant of simply
> >
> > else
> > delta = double_int_one;
>
> I think it would be bad idea: it makes us to completely unroll one interation
> too many that bloats code for no benefit. No optimization cancels the path in
> CFG because of undefined eff
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem is
> > that
> > dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
> > statement
> > must be executed at last iteration of the loop is wrong ignor
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem is
> that
> dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
> statement
> must be executed at last iteration of the loop is wrong ignoring the side
>
Hi,
this patch fixes off-by-one error in the testcase attached. The problem is that
dominance based test used by record_estimate to check whether the given
statement
must be executed at last iteration of the loop is wrong ignoring the side effect
of other statements that may terminate the program
11 matches
Mail list logo
