On 07/02/2015 05:40 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/24/2015 01:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
And then there is the possibility of making passes generate less
needs to perform cleanups after them - like in the present case
with the redundant IVs make them more appearant redundant b
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Alan Lawrence wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 06/24/2015 01:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > And then there is the possibility of making passes generate less
> > > needs to perform cleanups after them - like in the present case
> > > with the redundant IVs make them more appe
Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/24/2015 01:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
And then there is the possibility of making passes generate less
needs to perform cleanups after them - like in the present case
with the redundant IVs make them more appearant redundant by
CSEing the initial value and step during vec
On 06/24/2015 01:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Redundant, basically two IVs with the same initial value and same step.
IVOPTs can deal with this if the initial values and the step are already
same "enough" - the vectorizer can end up generating redundant huge
expressions for both.
Ah, so yes, this
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 08:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The following patch adds FRE after vectorization which is needed
> > for IVOPTs to remove redundant PHI nodes (well, I'm testing a
> > patch for FRE that will do it already there).
> Redundant or degenera
On 06/10/2015 08:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The following patch adds FRE after vectorization which is needed
for IVOPTs to remove redundant PHI nodes (well, I'm testing a
patch for FRE that will do it already there).
Redundant or degenerates which should be propagated?
I believe Alan Lawrenc
