On 06/09/2016 05:18 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
The patch caused:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71466
THanks. I've got a few issues to address related to that change -- I've
just been swamped with some personal stuff the last week.
I'm seriously considering reverting the ch
Hello.
The patch caused:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71466
Thanks,
Martin
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/31/2016 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> Essentially we want to limit the backwards substitution to single step
>>> within a single block for that case (which is trivially easy). That
>>> would allow us to run a very cheap threader du
On 05/31/2016 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Essentially we want to limit the backwards substitution to single step
within a single block for that case (which is trivially easy). That
would allow us to run a very cheap threader during early optimizations.
Just do double check - the pass does
On May 31, 2016 4:55:36 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 05/30/2016 03:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> Ok, but the placement (and number of) threading passes then no longer
>depends
>> on DOM/VRP passes - and as you placed the threading passes _before_
>those
>> passes the threading itself doe
On 05/30/2016 03:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ok, but the placement (and number of) threading passes then no longer depends
on DOM/VRP passes - and as you placed the threading passes _before_ those
passes the threading itself does not benefit from DOM/VRP but only from
previous optimization pass
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> It's been my plan since finally wrapping my head around Bodik's thesis to
> revamp how we handle jump threading to use some of the principles from his
> thesis. In particular, the back substitution and simplification model feels
> like the righ
