On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
> i think that i sympathize with richard's "do we really need another parm?"
> whine. I would have just nailed it in without the parm. I think that it
> is unreasonable to expect that a program with basic blocks this big needs
> the full ra
i think that i sympathize with richard's "do we really need another
parm?" whine. I would have just nailed it in without the parm. I
think that it is unreasonable to expect that a program with basic blocks
this big needs the full range of optimizations performed.
It is perfectly reasonable
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:19:30PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Jakub's behavior is expected, since the number of active local
> stores should be 1 with the earlier patch in that testcase.
> However, similar artificial testcases can probably be constructed
> that still trigger the ill behavior.
N
On 03/16/2011 12:59 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:46:20AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 03/16/2011 12:12 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
so how much time does this save?
I agree that this is a useful simplification, b
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:46:20AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 03/16/2011 12:12 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> >so how much time does this save?
>> >
>> >I agree that this is a useful simplification, but it seems unlikely to
>> >be that
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:46:20AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/16/2011 12:12 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> >so how much time does this save?
> >
> >I agree that this is a useful simplification, but it seems unlikely to
> >be that important in real code.
> >it seems like the 5000 store test wo
On 03/16/2011 12:12 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
so how much time does this save?
I agree that this is a useful simplification, but it seems unlikely to
be that important in real code.
it seems like the 5000 store test would in general provide a better
safety valve.
I think having both is a good
On Mar 15, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48141.c.jj 2011-03-15 21:48:46.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48141.c2011-03-15 21:48:27.0 +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +/* PR rtl-optimization/48141 */
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-optio
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:12:13PM -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> so how much time does this save?
>From those 7 minutes back to 16 seconds (--enable-checking=yes,
it was 4 seconds in 4.3 with release checking), DSE{1,2} takes each 1%,
while previously it was together well over 99%.
> I agree tha
so how much time does this save?
I agree that this is a useful simplification, but it seems unlikely to
be that important in real code.
it seems like the 5000 store test would in general provide a better
safety valve.
Kenny
On 03/15/2011 07:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On the attached t
10 matches
Mail list logo
