On 07/05/15 17:24, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:12:33AM +0100, Kugan wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-04-24 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Jim Wilson
* config/arm/aarch-common-protos.h (struct mem_cost_table): Added
new fields loadv
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:12:33AM +0100, Kugan wrote:
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 2015-04-24 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> >>Jim Wilson
> >>
> >>* config/arm/aarch-common-protos.h (struct mem_cost_table): Added
> >>new fields loadv and storev.
> >>* config/aarch64/aarch64-co
On 05/05/15 16:17, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:26:16AM +0100, Kugan wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the review. I have updated the patch based on the comments
>> with some other minor changes. Bootstrapped and regression tested on
>> aarch64-none-linux-gnu with no-new regressions
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:26:16AM +0100, Kugan wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review. I have updated the patch based on the comments
> with some other minor changes. Bootstrapped and regression tested on
> aarch64-none-linux-gnu with no-new regressions. Is this OK for trunk?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kugan
>
On 21/04/15 06:22, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:19:14PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
My point is that adding your patch while keeping the logic at the top
which claims to catch ALL vector operations makes for less readable
code.
At the very least you'll need
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:19:14PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
> >> My point is that adding your patch while keeping the logic at the top
> >> which claims to catch ALL vector operations makes for less readable
> >> code.
> >>
> >> At the very least you'll need to update this comment:
> >>
> >> /* TODO:
On 17/04/15 12:19, Kugan wrote:
Hi James,
Here is an attempt along this line. Is this what you have in mind?
Trying to keep functionality as before so that we can tune the
parameters later. Not fully tested yet.
Hi Kugan,
I'm not doing a full review here, just have a comment inline.
Thanks,
>> My point is that adding your patch while keeping the logic at the top
>> which claims to catch ALL vector operations makes for less readable
>> code.
>>
>> At the very least you'll need to update this comment:
>>
>> /* TODO: The cost infrastructure currently does not handle
>> vector oper
> On Apr 15, 2015, at 2:18 PM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:45:36AM +0100, Kugan wrote:
>>> There are two ways I see that we could clean things up, both of which
>>> require some reworking of your patch.
>>>
>>> Either we remove my check above and teach the RTX costs
On 15/04/15 21:18, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:45:36AM +0100, Kugan wrote:
>>> There are two ways I see that we could clean things up, both of which
>>> require some reworking of your patch.
>>>
>>> Either we remove my check above and teach the RTX costs how to properly
>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:45:36AM +0100, Kugan wrote:
> > There are two ways I see that we could clean things up, both of which
> > require some reworking of your patch.
> >
> > Either we remove my check above and teach the RTX costs how to properly
> > cost vector operations, or we fix my check
On 15/04/15 12:05, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:14:11AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 15/04/15 10:25, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
Now that Stage1 is open, is this OK for trunk.
Hi Kugan,
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarc
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:14:11AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 15/04/15 10:25, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
> >> Now that Stage1 is open, is this OK for trunk.
> > Hi Kugan,
> >
> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/confi
On 15/04/15 19:25, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
>> Now that Stage1 is open, is this OK for trunk.
>
> Hi Kugan,
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
>> index cba3c1a..d6ad0af 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/
On 15/04/15 10:25, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
Now that Stage1 is open, is this OK for trunk.
Hi Kugan,
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
index cba3c1a..d6ad0af 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Kugan wrote:
> Now that Stage1 is open, is this OK for trunk.
Hi Kugan,
> diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> index cba3c1a..d6ad0af 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
>
Ping?
Now that Stage1 is open, is this OK for trunk.
Thanks,
Kugan
On 26/03/15 18:21, Kugan wrote:
> ping?
>
> Thanks,
> Kugan
>
> On 17/03/15 12:19, Kugan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/03/15 03:48, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/03/15 13:15, Kugan wrote:
On 16/03/15 23:32, Kugan wrote:
ping?
Thanks,
Kugan
On 17/03/15 12:19, Kugan wrote:
>
>
> On 17/03/15 03:48, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>>
>> On 16/03/15 13:15, Kugan wrote:
>>> On 16/03/15 23:32, Kugan wrote:
>> lower-subreg.c:compute_costs() only cares about the cost of a (set
>> (reg)
>> (const_int )) move but I thi
On 17/03/15 03:48, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 16/03/15 13:15, Kugan wrote:
>> On 16/03/15 23:32, Kugan wrote:
> lower-subreg.c:compute_costs() only cares about the cost of a (set
> (reg)
> (const_int )) move but I think the intention, at least for now, is to
> return extra_cost
On 16/03/15 13:15, Kugan wrote:
On 16/03/15 23:32, Kugan wrote:
lower-subreg.c:compute_costs() only cares about the cost of a (set (reg)
(const_int )) move but I think the intention, at least for now, is to
return extra_cost->vect.alu for all the vector operations.
Almost, what we want at the
Resending, now that I've figured out how to make gmail send text email
instead of html.
> >> Almost, what we want at the moment is COSTS_N_INSNS (1) +
> >> extra_cost->vect.alu
This won't work, because extra_cost->vect.alu is COSTS_N_INSNS (1),
which means the total is COSTS_N_INSNS (2).
The low
On 16/03/15 23:32, Kugan wrote:
>>> lower-subreg.c:compute_costs() only cares about the cost of a (set (reg)
>>> (const_int )) move but I think the intention, at least for now, is to
>>> return extra_cost->vect.alu for all the vector operations.
>>
>> Almost, what we want at the moment is COSTS_N_I
>> lower-subreg.c:compute_costs() only cares about the cost of a (set (reg)
>> (const_int )) move but I think the intention, at least for now, is to
>> return extra_cost->vect.alu for all the vector operations.
>
> Almost, what we want at the moment is COSTS_N_INSNS (1) +
> extra_cost->vect.alu
T
On 16/03/15 05:36, Kugan wrote:
Hi Kugan,
AArch64 RTX cost for vector SET is causing PR65375. Lower subreg is
using this rtx_cost to compute the cost of moves, and splitting anything
larger than word size, 64-bits in this case. The aarch64 rtx_costs is
returning 2 * COST_N_INSNS(1) for vector
24 matches
Mail list logo
