On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
I think we need Richard to say what the intent is for the valueization
function. It is used both to stop looking at defining stmt
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>> Marc Glisse writes:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Marc Glisse
> wrote:
>>
>
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
I think we need Richard to say what the intent is for the
Marc Glisse writes:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I think we need Richard to say what the intent is for the valueization
>> function
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
I think we need Richard to say what the intent is for the valueization
function. It is used both to stop looking at defining s
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
I think we need Richard to say what the intent is for the valueization
function. It is used both to stop looking at defining stmt if the return
is
NULL
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> I think we need Richard to say what the intent is for the valueization
>>> function. It is used both to stop looking at defining stmt if the return
>>> is
>>> NULL, and to replace/optimize one SS
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
I think we need Richard to say what the intent is for the valueization
function. It is used both to stop looking at defining stmt if the return is
NULL, and to replace/optimize one SSA_NAME with another, but currently it
seems hard to prevent looking at
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>
But since definition of _197 isn't in current stmt sequence, call "o31
= do_valueize (va
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
But since definition of _197 isn't in current stmt sequence, call "o3
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>
But since definition of _197 isn't in current stmt sequence, call "o31
= do_valueize (va
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
But since definition of _197 isn't in current stmt sequence, call "o31
= do_valueize (valueize, o31)" will return NULL. As a result, it's
not matched.
Wait, act
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> But since definition of _197 isn't in current stmt sequence, call "o31
>> = do_valueize (valueize, o31)" will return NULL. As a result, it's
>> not matched.
>
>
> Wait, actually, how was your fold_bui
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
But since definition of _197 isn't in current stmt sequence, call "o31
= do_valueize (valueize, o31)" will return NULL. As a result, it's
not matched.
Wait, actually, how was your fold_build* version working? Why was the
first addition "in the current ge
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>>> For _123, we have
>>>
>>> /* (A +- CST1) +- CST2 -> A + CST3
>>> or
>>> /* Associate (p +p off1) +p off2 as (p +p (off1 + off2)). */
>>>
>>>
>>> For _115, we have
>>>
>>> /* min (a, a + CST) -> a w
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
For _123, we have
/* (A +- CST1) +- CST2 -> A + CST3
or
/* Associate (p +p off1) +p off2 as (p +p (off1 + off2)). */
For _115, we have
/* min (a, a + CST) -> a where CST is positive. */
/* min (a, a + CST) -> a + CST where CST is negative. */
(simpli
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That means we miss a pattern in match.PD to handle this case.
>>
>> I see. I will withdraw this patch and look in that direction.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On June 16, 2017 3:31:32 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On June 16, 2017 3:31:32 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On June 16, 2017 3:31:32 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bin.Cheng
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:49
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On June 16, 2017 3:31:32 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
> wrote:
>>On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bin.Cheng
>>wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Richard Biener
wr
On June 16, 2017 3:31:32 PM GMT+02:00, "Bin.Cheng"
wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bin.Cheng
>wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Bin Cheng
>wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
Hi,
Loop split forces intermediate computation to gimple opera
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Loop split forces intermediate computation to gimple operands all the time
>>> when
>>> computing bound information. Th
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Loop split forces intermediate computation to gimple operands all the time
>> when
>> computing bound information. This is not good since folding opportunities
>> are
>> missed
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> Loop split forces intermediate computation to gimple operands all the time
> when
> computing bound information. This is not good since folding opportunities are
> missed. This patch fixes the issue by feeding all computation to folder a
26 matches
Mail list logo
