Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-22 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/20/14 05:42, Richard Biener wrote: That was a conscious decision and the idea was that the caller should do this via its lattice valueization function which could look like tree valueize (tree t) { if (TREE_CODE (t) == SSA_NAME && !has_single_use (t)) return NULL_TREE; re

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-20 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Sebastian Pop wrote: > > Richard Biener wrote: > > > looks like > > > RTL issues and/or IVOPTs issues? > > > > I should have posted the first diff between the compilers with > > -fdump-tree-all: > > that would expose the problem at its root. > > Looks

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Sebastian Pop
Sebastian Pop wrote: > Richard Biener wrote: > > looks like > > RTL issues and/or IVOPTs issues? > > I should have posted the first diff between the compilers with > -fdump-tree-all: > that would expose the problem at its root. Looks like this is caused by the fwprop pass: diff -u -r ./foo.i.08

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Richard Biener
On October 17, 2014 6:35:58 PM CEST, Sebastian Pop wrote: >Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote: >> >> > Richard Biener wrote: >> > > >> > > I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge >> > > (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Sebastian Pop
Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote: > > > Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge > > > (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think > > > there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Kyrill Tkachov > > wrote: > > > > > > On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that > > >> my

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Kyrill Tkachov > wrote: > > > > On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > >> > >> Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that > >> my maintainership covers enough to simply check this in > >> witho

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Richard Biener wrote: > > > > I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge > > (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think > > there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project > > is sound there are technical qu

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> >> Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that >> my maintainership covers enough to simply check this in >> without approval). >> > Hi Richard, > > The match-and-simplify branch boot

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-17 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 16/10/14 21:43, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: Richard Biener wrote: I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think there was overall consensus that the idea behind the pro

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-16 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Richard Biener wrote: >> >> I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge >> (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think >> there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project >> is sound there are techni

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-16 Thread Sebastian Pop
Richard Biener wrote: > > I have posted 5 patches as part of a larger series to merge > (parts) from the match-and-simplify branch. While I think > there was overall consensus that the idea behind the project > is sound there are technical questions left for how the > thing should look in the end

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:00:57PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > To re-iterate here (as I expect most people will only look > at [0/n] patches ;)), the question is whether we are fine > with making fold-const (thus fold_{unary,binary,ternary}) > not handle some cases it handles currently. I'd say

Re: [PATCH][0/n] Merge from match-and-simplify

2014-10-15 Thread Kyrill Tkachov
On 15/10/14 14:00, Richard Biener wrote: Any comments and reviews welcome (I don't think that my maintainership covers enough to simply check this in without approval). Hi Richard, The match-and-simplify branch bootstrapped successfully on aarch64-none-linux-gnu FWIW. Thanks, Kyrill