On 8/14/23 18:35, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 8/11/23 17:04, Jeff Law wrote:
I'm wondering (naively) if there is some way to tune this - for a
given backend. In general it would make sense to do the replacement,
but not if the cost changes (e.g. consts could be embedded in x86
insn freely, bu
On 8/12/23 10:44, Jivan Hakobyan wrote:
Yes, as mentioned Jeff I have some work in that scope.
The first is related to address computation when it has a large constant
part.
Suppose we have this code:
int consume (void *);
int foo (void) {
int x[1000];
return con
On 8/11/23 17:04, Jeff Law wrote:
I'm wondering (naively) if there is some way to tune this - for a
given backend. In general it would make sense to do the replacement,
but not if the cost changes (e.g. consts could be embedded in x86
insn freely, but not for RISC-V where this is costly and
Yes, as mentioned Jeff I have some work in that scope.
The first is related to address computation when it has a large constant
part.
Suppose we have this code:
int consume (void *);
int foo (void) {
int x[1000];
return consume (x);
}
before IRA we have the following s
On 8/11/23 17:32, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 8/1/23 12:17, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Hi Jeff,
As discussed this morning, I'm sending over dumps for the optim of DF
const -0.0 (PR/110748) [1]
For rv64gc_zbs build, IRA is undoing the split which eventually leads
to ICE in final pass.
[1] https://g
On 8/1/23 12:17, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Hi Jeff,
As discussed this morning, I'm sending over dumps for the optim of DF
const -0.0 (PR/110748) [1]
For rv64gc_zbs build, IRA is undoing the split which eventually leads
to ICE in final pass.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11074
Hi Jeff,
As discussed this morning, I'm sending over dumps for the optim of DF
const -0.0 (PR/110748) [1]
For rv64gc_zbs build, IRA is undoing the split which eventually leads to
ICE in final pass.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110748#c15
void znd(double *d) { *d = -0.0;
