On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Pat Haugen wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 04:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Any help with benchmarking this on targets other than x86_64
> > is appreciated (I'll re-do x86_64).
> >
> I ran CPU2000 and CPU2006 on PowerPC comparing the patch. CPU2000 had 3
> benchmarks degrade in the
On 09/04/2013 04:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Any help with benchmarking this on targets other than x86_64
is appreciated (I'll re-do x86_64).
I ran CPU2000 and CPU2006 on PowerPC comparing the patch. CPU2000 had 3
benchmarks degrade in the 4%-6%range (254.gap, 168.wupwise,
173.applu).CPU2006
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 07:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > update-ssa for example just queues to release SSA names. But yes,
> > re-using SSA names from a freelist has issues and advantages ;)
> Yup. I've wondered from time to time if we could do away with the
On 09/10/2013 07:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
update-ssa for example just queues to release SSA names. But yes,
re-using SSA names from a freelist has issues and advantages ;)
Yup. I've wondered from time to time if we could do away with the name
manager -- IIRCC it was written when we took e
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 02:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > > > First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede IVOPTs leave
> > > > > > > around I
On 09/10/2013 02:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede IVOPTs leave
around IL that is in desparate need of basic re-optimization
like CSE, constant propag
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >> First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede IVOPTs leave
> >> >> around IL that is in desparate need of basic re-optimization
> >> >> like CSE, constant propagation and DCE. That put
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> >> First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede IVOPTs leave
>>> >> around IL that is in desparate need of basic re-optimization
>>> >> like CSE, constant propagation and DCE.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede IVOPTs leave
>> >> around IL that is in desparate need of basic re-optimization
>> >> like CSE, constant propagation and DCE. That puts extra load
>> >> on IVOPTs and its cost model, inc
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "Bin.Cheng" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> The patch below moves IVOPTs out of the GIMPLE loop pipeline more
> >> closer to RTL expansion. That's done for multiple reasons.
On Sep 8, 2013, at 7:01 PM, "Bin.Cheng" wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> The patch below moves IVOPTs out of the GIMPLE loop pipeline more
>> closer to RTL expansion. That's done for multiple reasons.
>>
>> First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> The patch below moves IVOPTs out of the GIMPLE loop pipeline more
>> closer to RTL expansion. That's done for multiple reasons.
>>
>> First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The patch below moves IVOPTs out of the GIMPLE loop pipeline more
> closer to RTL expansion. That's done for multiple reasons.
>
> First, the loop passes that at the moment preceede IVOPTs leave
> around IL that is in desparate need of bas
13 matches
Mail list logo
