On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Previously, the computation of _1174 can be replaced by _629
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>
>> Previously, the computation of _1174 can be replaced by _629 in bb8 in
>> DOM2 pass, while it can't after patching. This
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On February 9, 2015 11:09:49 AM CET, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Did you extract a testcase for it? Note that the IV step itself may be
>> expanded
>> Too much.
>>
>> I
>>>looked into
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On February 9, 2015 11:09:49 AM CET, Bin Cheng wrote:
>
> Did you extract a testcase for it? Note that the IV step itself may be
> expanded
> Too much.
>
> I
>>looked into the regression and thought it was because of passes after
>>IVO
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> The second time I missed patch in one day, I hate myself.
>>> Here it is.
>>
>> I think the patch is reasonable but I would have u
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> The second time I missed patch in one day, I hate myself.
>> Here it is.
>
> I think the patch is reasonable but I would have used a default = NULL
> arg for 'stop' to make the patch smal
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> The second time I missed patch in one day, I hate myself.
> Here it is.
I think the patch is reasonable but I would have used a default = NULL
arg for 'stop' to make the patch smaller. You don't constrain 'stop'
to being an SSA name - any parti
On February 9, 2015 11:09:49 AM CET, Bin Cheng wrote:
>Hi,
>As comments in the PR, root cause is GCC aggressively expand induction
>variable's base. This patch avoids that by adding new parameter to
>expand_simple_operations thus we can stop expansion whenever ssa var
>referred by IV's step is en
The second time I missed patch in one day, I hate myself.
Here it is.
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Bin Cheng
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 6:10 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH PR6470
