On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch implements the logic to remove statements that are known to be
> undefined and thus expected to not be executed after unrolling. It also
> removes redundant exits that I originally tried to do at once, but it
> does not fly, s
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 01:30:02PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > > unroll you mean. Because unrolling mutates the CFG too much.
> > > > > Well - it was just a starting point, populating -Og with as li
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 01:30:02PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > unroll you mean. Because unrolling mutates the CFG too much.
> > > > Well - it was just a starting point, populating -Og with as little
> > > > as possible and 100% profitable tran
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 01:30:02PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > > unroll you mean. Because unrolling mutates the CFG too much.
> > > > Well - it was just a starting point, populating -Og with as little
>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 01:30:02PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > unroll you mean. Because unrolling mutates the CFG too much.
> > > Well - it was just a starting point, populating -Og with as little
> > > as possible and 100% profitable transforms (in
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > unroll you mean. Because unrolling mutates the CFG too much.
> > Well - it was just a starting point, populating -Og with as little
> > as possible and 100% profitable transforms (in both debug and speed
> > metric). In late opts we only do (early
>
> unroll you mean. Because unrolling mutates the CFG too much.
> Well - it was just a starting point, populating -Og with as little
> as possible and 100% profitable transforms (in both debug and speed
> metric). In late opts we only do (early opt queue is shared):
Well, and what about early
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> > > ===
> > > --- tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (revision 192989)
> > > @@ -3505,15 +3737,11 @@ scev_probably_wraps_p (tree base, tree s
> > >return true;
> > >
> > Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> > ===
> > --- tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (revision 192989)
> > @@ -3505,15 +3737,11 @@ scev_probably_wraps_p (tree base, tree s
> >return true;
> > }
> >
> > -/* Frees the information on upper bou
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch implements the logic to remove statements that are known to be
> undefined and thus expected to not be executed after unrolling. It also
> removes redundant exits that I originally tried to do at once, but it
> does not fly, since the pee
Hi,
this patch implements the logic to remove statements that are known to be
undefined and thus expected to not be executed after unrolling. It also
removes redundant exits that I originally tried to do at once, but it
does not fly, since the peeling confuse number_of_iterations_exit
and it no lo
11 matches
Mail list logo
