On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:40 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes:
> > On 2022-05-29 23:05, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 5:12 AM Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2022-05-24 23:39, liuhongt wrote:
> Rigt now, me
Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches writes:
> On 2022-05-29 23:05, Hongtao Liu wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 5:12 AM Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2022-05-24 23:39, liuhongt wrote:
Rigt now, mem_cost for separate mem alternative is 1 * frequency which
is pretty
On 2022-05-29 23:05, Hongtao Liu wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 5:12 AM Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 2022-05-24 23:39, liuhongt wrote:
Rigt now, mem_cost for separate mem alternative is 1 * frequency which
is pretty small and caused the unnecessary SSE spill in the PR, I've tr
On Mon, 30 May 2022, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 3:44 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 30 May 2022, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:22 PM Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The spill is mainly decided by 3 insns r
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 3:44 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 May 2022, Hongtao Liu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:22 PM Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The spill is mainly decided by 3 insns related to r92
> > > >
> > > > 283(insn 3 61 4 2 (set (reg
On Mon, 30 May 2022, Hongtao Liu wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:22 PM Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The spill is mainly decided by 3 insns related to r92
> > >
> > > 283(insn 3 61 4 2 (set (reg/v:SF 92 [ x ])
> > > 284(reg:SF 102)) "test3.c":7:1 142 {*movsf_in
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:22 PM Alexander Monakov via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> > > In the PR, the spill happens in the initial basic block of the function,
> > > i.e.
> > > the one with the highest frequency.
> > >
> > > Also as noted in the PR, swapping the 'unlikely' branch to 'likely'
> > > avo
> > In the PR, the spill happens in the initial basic block of the function,
> > i.e.
> > the one with the highest frequency.
> >
> > Also as noted in the PR, swapping the 'unlikely' branch to 'likely' avoids
> > the spill,
> > even though it does not affect the frequency of the initial basic bl
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 5:12 AM Vladimir Makarov via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-05-24 23:39, liuhongt wrote:
> > Rigt now, mem_cost for separate mem alternative is 1 * frequency which
> > is pretty small and caused the unnecessary SSE spill in the PR, I've tried
> > to rework backend cost mo
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Monakov
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 5:39 PM
> To: Liu, Hongtao
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a bit dislike for separate mem alternative when op is
> REG_P.
>
> On Wed, 25 May 2022, liu
On Wed, 25 May 2022, liuhongt via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Rigt now, mem_cost for separate mem alternative is 1 * frequency which
> is pretty small and caused the unnecessary SSE spill in the PR, I've tried
> to rework backend cost model, but RA still not happy with that(regress
> somewhere else). I t
On 2022-05-24 23:39, liuhongt wrote:
Rigt now, mem_cost for separate mem alternative is 1 * frequency which
is pretty small and caused the unnecessary SSE spill in the PR, I've tried
to rework backend cost model, but RA still not happy with that(regress
somewhere else). I think the root cause o
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:39 AM liuhongt via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Rigt now, mem_cost for separate mem alternative is 1 * frequency which
> is pretty small and caused the unnecessary SSE spill in the PR, I've tried
> to rework backend cost model, but RA still not happy with that(regress
> somewh
13 matches
Mail list logo
