This is the patch that was committed.
nathan
2015-10-27 Nathan Sidwell
* internal-fn.c (expand_UNIQUE): New.
* internal-fn.h (enum ifn_unique_kind): New.
* internal-fn.def (IFN_UNIQUE): New.
* target-insns.def (unique): Define.
* gimple.h (gimple_call_internal_unique_p): New.
* gimple.
On 10/27/15 01:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
to break out the else part into a separate function. That's fine -- it'll
copy the whole CFG of interest.
The question is if some UNIQUE call could be ever considered as part of the
chea
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 07:03:40AM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/27/15 06:45, Richard Biener wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >>Ok for me, but please wait for Richi's ack too.
> >
> >+ /* An IFN_UNIQUE call must be duplicated as part of its group,
>
On 10/27/15 06:45, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Ok for me, but please wait for Richi's ack too.
+ /* An IFN_UNIQUE call must be duplicated as part of its group,
+or not at all. */
+ if (is_gimple_call (g) && gimple_call_inter
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Richard, Jakub,
>> this updates patch 1 to use the target-insns.def mechanism of detecting
>> conditionally-implemented instructions. Otherwise it's the same as
>> yesterday'
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Richard, Jakub,
> this updates patch 1 to use the target-insns.def mechanism of detecting
> conditionally-implemented instructions. Otherwise it's the same as
> yesterday's patch. To recap:
>
> 1) Moved the subcodes to an enumerat
Richard, Jakub,
this updates patch 1 to use the target-insns.def mechanism of detecting
conditionally-implemented instructions. Otherwise it's the same as yesterday's
patch. To recap:
1) Moved the subcodes to an enumeration in internal-fn.h
2) Remove ECF_LEAF
3) Added check in initialize_c
Richard, Jakub,
here is an updated patch. Changes from previous version
1) Moved the subcodes to an enumeration in internal-fn.h
2) Remove ECF_LEAF
3) Added check in initialize_ctrl_altering
4) tracer code now (continues) to only look in last stmt of block
I looked at fnsplit and do not beli
On 10/23/15 09:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 09:13:43AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
You're correct that the SESE region could be split across a function
boundary in the manner you describe, but the complexity of dealing with
that in the backend's partitioning code would be h
On 10/23/15 09:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:57:17AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
If this is during the omplower pass, then it is before cfg pass and
therefore all you need is tweak the gimple_call_initialize_ctrl_altering
function and the cfg pass will DTRT.
ok, thanks
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 09:13:43AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> You're correct that the SESE region could be split across a function
> boundary in the manner you describe, but the complexity of dealing with
> that in the backend's partitioning code would be high. Let's not try and
> enable that
On 10/23/15 09:03, Richard Biener wrote:
It's a hack. I don't like hacks.
One person's hack can be another person's pragmatism :)
I think the requirement "don't duplicate me"
but inlining is ok is somewhat broken.
The requirement is that the SESE region formed by the markers remains as a
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:57:17AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >If you want to force end of a BB after the IFN_UNIQUE call, then you can just
> >gimple_call_set_ctrl_altering (gcall, true);
> >on it, and probably tweak gimple_call_initialize_ctrl_altering
> >so that it does that by default. Plu
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/23/15 04:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:06:54PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/22/15 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 1
On 10/23/15 04:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:06:54PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/22/15 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so we have to check
at most
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:06:54PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >>On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so we have to check
> >>>at mo
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:17:32PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 04:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >>+ /* Ignore blocks containing non-clonable function calls. */
> >>+ for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (CONST_CAST_BB (bb));
> >>+ !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
> >>+{
> >>+
On 10/22/15 04:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ /* Ignore blocks containing non-clonable function calls. */
+ for (gsi = gsi_start_bb (CONST_CAST_BB (bb));
+ !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next (&gsi))
+{
+ g = gsi_stmt (gsi);
+
+ if (is_gimple_call (g) && gimple_call_internal_p (g)
+
On 10/22/15 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so we have to check
at most a single stmt. ECF_RETURNS_TWICE should achieve that,
it also makes it a code m
On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so we have to check
at most a single stmt. ECF_RETURNS_TWICE should achieve that,
it also makes it a code motion barrier.
I'm having a hard time making UNIQUE the end of a BB.
I'm emitting code to a gim
On 10/22/15 10:30, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Essentially, yes. a set of IFN_UNIQUE form a group which must not be
separated from each other. The set is discovered implicitly by following
the CFG (though I suppose we could add an identifyin
On 10/22/15 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
RETURNS_TWICE will make the invariant motion stop at UNIQUE (HEAD),
but it would have done that anyway. It will also be a CSE barrier, thus
tem = global;
UNIQUE(HEAD)
tem2 = global;
will not CSE
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 09:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:08:30AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with Richard that it would be better to write more about what kind
>> of IL changes are acceptable with IFN_UNIQUE i
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so we have to check
>> at most a single stmt. ECF_RETURNS_TWICE should achieve that,
>> it also makes it a code motion barrier.
>
>
> Just so I'm
On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so we have to check
at most a single stmt. ECF_RETURNS_TWICE should achieve that,
it also makes it a code motion barrier.
Just so I'm clear, you're not saying that RETURNS_TWICE will stop the call being
On 10/22/15 09:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:08:30AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I agree with Richard that it would be better to write more about what kind
of IL changes are acceptable with IFN_UNIQUE in the IL and what are not.
E.g. is inlining ok (I'd hope yes)? Is fu
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:08:30AM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/22/15 07:10, Julian Brown wrote:
> >On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:05:30 +0200
> >Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >>So you'd need to be more precise as to what properties you are trying
> >>to preserve by placing a single stmt somewhere.
>
On 10/22/15 07:10, Julian Brown wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:05:30 +0200
Richard Biener wrote:
So you'd need to be more precise as to what properties you are trying
to preserve by placing a single stmt somewhere.
FWIW an earlier, abandoned attempt at solving the same problem was
discussed
On 10/22/15 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Do you have to scan the whole bb? E.g. don't or should not those
unique IFNs force end of bb?
Yeah, please make them either end or start a BB so we have to check
at most a single stmt. ECF_RETU
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:05:30 +0200
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >> Jakub, IYR I originally had IFN_FORK and IFN_JOIN as such
> >> >> distinct internal fns. This replaces
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:00:47PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> To distinguish different uses of the UNIQUE function, I use the first
>> argument, which is expected to be an INTEGER_CST. I figured this better
>> than using multiple new i
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> Jakub, IYR I originally had IFN_FORK and IFN_JOIN as such distinct
>> >> internal
>> >> fns. This replaces that scheme.
>> >>
>> >> ok?
>> >
>> > Hmm, I'd just have used
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:00:47PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> To distinguish different uses of the UNIQUE function, I use the first
> argument, which is expected to be an INTEGER_CST. I figured this better
> than using multiple new internal fns, all with the unique property, as the
> latter wo
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:49:29AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Jakub, IYR I originally had IFN_FORK and IFN_JOIN as such distinct internal
> >> fns. This replaces that scheme.
> >>
> >> ok?
> >
> > Hmm, I'd just have used gimple_has_volatile_ops on the call? That
> > should have the
> > des
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> This patch implements a new internal function that has a 'uniqueness'
>> property. Jump-threading cannot clone it and tail-merging cannot combine
>> multiple instances.
>>
>> The u
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> This patch implements a new internal function that has a 'uniqueness'
> property. Jump-threading cannot clone it and tail-merging cannot combine
> multiple instances.
>
> The uniqueness is implemented by a new gimple fn,
> gimple_call_inte
This patch implements a new internal function that has a 'uniqueness' property.
Jump-threading cannot clone it and tail-merging cannot combine multiple
instances.
The uniqueness is implemented by a new gimple fn, gimple_call_internal_unique_p.
Routines that check for identical or cloneable
38 matches
Mail list logo
