On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch merges adjacent memset builtin partitions if possible. It is
>>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This patch merge
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM,
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 10/09/2017 03:34 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Function generate_loops_for_partition chooses arbitrary path when
>>> removing exit
>>> condition not in partition. This is
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bin Cheng wrote:
>
>> * match.pd (A + CST cmp A -> CST cmp zero): New simplification
>> for undefined overflow types in (A + CST CMP A -> A CMP' CST').
>
>
> Could you check if you still need that? I rec
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bin Cheng wrote:
>
>> * match.pd (A +- CST1 CMP A +- CST2): New pattern.
>
>
> Similarly, this has a very large overlap with "X + Z < Y + Z" transforms
> already in match.pd. It may handle X - CST CMP X + CST that t
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch improves the ivopts address cost calculcation for modes
> in which an index must be scaled rather than unscaled. Previously
> we would only try the scaled form if the unscaled form was valid.
>
> Many of the SVE tests rely on t
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a simple patch exploiting more undefined pointer overflow behavior in
>> loop niter analysis. Originally, it only supports POINTER_PLUS_EXPR if the
>> offset part is IV. T
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This is
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:38 AM,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a followup patch better handling below case:
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>{
> a[i] = 1;
> a[i+2] = 2;
>}
> Instead of generating root variables by loading from memory and propagating
> with PHI
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 30 June 2017 at 12:43, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 28
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 30 June 2017 at 12:43, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 28
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 17 July 2017 at 12:06, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Bin,
>>>
>>> On 30 June 2017 at 12:43, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On We
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I removed unsafe loop optimization on TREE level last year, so GCC doesn't
>> do unsafe
>> loop optimizations on TREE now. All "unsafe loop optimizations" warnings
>> reported
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:15:04PM +, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> After change @236817, AArch64 backend could avoid unnecessary conversion
>> instructions for register between different modes now. As a result, GCC
>> could initialize
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following is sth I noticed when looking at a way to fix PR81303.
> We happily compute a runtime cost model threshold that executes the
> vectorized variant even though no vector iteration takes place due
> to the number of prologue/epi
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 se
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)). */
>>
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
Ping^1.
Thanks,
bin
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Richard Biener
>>> 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'
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This is a followup patch better handling below case:
>>> for (i = 0; i < n;
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26/07/17 20:14 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> On 26/07/2017 16:27, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 26/07/2017 16:21, Andreas Schwab wrote:
ERROR: 27_io/basic_fstream/53984.cc: unknown dg option:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Bin Cheng writes:
>> Hi,
>> This simple patch fixes the ICE by adding LTGT in
>> vec_cmp pattern.
>> I also modified the original test case into a compilation one since
>> -fno-wrapping-math
>> should not be used in general.
>> Bootstra
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Bin Cheng writes:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This simple patch fixes the ICE by adding LTGT in
&g
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/12/2017 05:28 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a simple patch discarding simple element components earlier in
>> predcom.
>> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64, is it OK?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>> 2017-05-10 Bin Cheng
>>
>>
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch caches initialization statements and only inserts it for valid
>>> chai
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This is a followup patch better handling below case:
>>> for (i = 0; i < n;
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a followup patch to PR81388's fix. According to Richi,
>> POINTER_TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED was added in -fstrict-overflow
>> warning work. Given:
>> A) strict-overflow
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Tamar Christina
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the changes in the patches the testsuite had a minor update in the
> assembler scan.
> I've posted the patch but will assume it's OK based on the previous OK for
> trunk and
> the fact that this can fall in the obvious rule.
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Tamar Christina
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> This patch lays the ground work to fix the immediate moves for floats
> to use a combination of mov, movi, fmov instead of ldr and adrp to load
> float constants that fit within the 16-bit limit of movz.
>
> The idea behind it
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Tamar Christina
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here's the re-spun patch.
> Aside from the grouping of the split patterns it now also uses h register for
> the fmov for HF when available,
> otherwise it forces a literal load.
>
> Regression tested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Tamar Christina
wrote:
>>
>> Given review comment already pointed out big-endian issue and patch was
>> updated to address it, I would expect reg-test on a big-endian target before
>> applying patch, right?
>
> The patch spent 6 months in external review.
> Given t
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Bin Cheng writes:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This simple patch fixes the ICE by adding LTGT in
&g
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 09:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:13:40AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2017 09:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 08:59:29AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 11:45 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> With r250771, GCC failed to build glibc for arm/aarch64 linux cross
>> toolchain:
>
> Hi.
>
> Sorry for the breakage, I accidentally installed wr
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2017 02:07 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following improves niter analysis for range-based for loops
> by handling ADDR_EXPR in expand_simple_operations.
>
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress.
>
> Richard.
>
> 2017-08-08 Richard Biener
>
>
Ping.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This simple patch fixes the ICE by adding LTGT in vec_cmp
> pattern.
> I also modified the original test case into a compilation one since
> -fno-wrapping-math
> should not be used in general.
> Bootstrap and test on AArch64, test
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch fixes ICE reported in PR81799. It simply uses is_gimple_val
>> rather than is_gimple_condexpr.
>> Bootstap and test on x86_64. Is it OK?
>
> I guess this eventually
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch fixes PR81832. Root cause for the ICE is:
>>> 1) Loop has distributed inner loop.
>>> 2) The guarding function call IFN_LOOP_DIST_C
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> Richard Biener writes:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>>>
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes to
> dr_analyze_innermost. Previously we would treat "i" as an iv even
> for bb analysis and end up with:
>
>DR_BASE_ADDRESS: p or q
>DR_OFFSET: 0
>DR_INIT: 0 o
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes to
>>> dr_analyze_innermost. Previous
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch implements a simple loop interchange pass in GCC, as described by
>> its comments:
>> +/* This pass performs loop interchange: for example, the loop nest
>> +
>> + fo
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This patch
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
>
> On 03/05/17 11:02, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Eric Botcazou
>>> wrote:
>>>>
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Currently IVOPTs shares the same register pressure computation with RTL loop
>> invariant pass,
>> which doesn't work very well. This patch introduces specific interface for
>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm still missing how some cases are handled or not handled,
>> sorry for the noise.
>>
>>> I'm not sure there is anything to "interpret" -- the operation is unsigned
>>> and ove
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
>
> On 4 May 2017 at 17:25, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>>
>> On 4 May 2017 at 17:25, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> If you look at certain testcases like the one for PR78972, you'll find that
>> the code generated by TER is maximally pessimal in terms of register
>> pressure: we can generate a larg
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Currently IVOPTs shares the same register pressure computation with RTL loop
>> invariant pass,
>> which doesn't work very well. This patch introduces specific interface for
>
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Simplification of (T1)(X *+- CST) is already implemented in
>> aff_combination_expand,
>> this patch moves it to tree_to_aff_combination. It also supports unsigned
>> types
>>
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote
>> Hi,
>> Based on vect_peeling algorithm, we know for sure that vectorized loop must
>> iterates at least once.
>> This patch sets range information for niter bounds of vectorized loop.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> -/* Calculates cost for having N_REGS registers. This number includes
>> - induction variables, invariant variables and invariant expressions. */
>> +/* Estimate register
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>>> -/* Calculates cost for having N_REGS registers. This number in
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> match.pd part of the patch.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-05-18 Robin Dapp
>
> * match.pd: Simplify wrapped binary operations.
> * tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_binary_expr_1): Add overflow
> parameter.
> (extra
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> Any reason to expose tree-vrp.c internal interface here? The function
>> looks quite expensive. Overflow check can be done by get_range_info
>> and simple wi::cmp calls. Existing code like in
>> tree-ssa-loop-niters.c already does that. Als
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Robin Dapp wrote:
>> I can guess what is happening here. It's a 40 bits unsigned long long
>> field, (s.b-8) will be like:
>> _1 = s.b
>> _2 = _1 + 0xf8
>> Also get_range_info returns value range [0, 0xFF] for _1.
>> You'd need to check if _1(with
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Based
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> AIUI, the reason the old code mishandled negative steps was that the
> associated segment lengths were stored as sizetype and so looked like
> big unsigned values. Those values therefore satisfied tree_fits_uhwi_p
> even though they were
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> AIUI, the reason the old code mishandled negative steps was that the
>>> associated segment lengths
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> As commented in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80815#c1,
> We can relax minimal segment length of DR_B for merging. With this change,
> the new test can be improved to only one alias check. Note the
> condition is still accu
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch set factors out runtime alias check code from
>> tree-vect-data-refs.c
>> and tree-vect-loop-manip.c as general interfaces in tree-data-ref.c. With
>> this
>> change
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Richard San
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This pat
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is the second patch in the set, it factors out code pruning runtime
>> alias
>> checks from file tree-vect-data-refs.c to tree-data-ref.c. It also
>> introduces
>> new int
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> As commented in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80815#c1,
>>> We can rela
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I believe this tests has been wrongly modified previously. It is to test
>> that the exit check on
>> pointer shouldn't be replaced by integer IV. Somehow GCC starts replacing
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> Thanks for posting the patch. I haven't looked in detail yet but have
> couple of quick questions.
>
> 1. Shouldn’t the run time alias check for versioning happen only when
> vectorisation is enabled? You seems to be using
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following is an attempt to change those testcases to be less dependent
> on previous passes. The original motivation of the testcases seems to be
> testing SCEV capabilities and in turn IVOPTs decisions, thus the testcases
> are chang
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 09:32:30AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 12/09/2016 03:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >PR78652 was fixed by patch for PR77856, this patch adds a test for it.
>> >Test result checked, is it OK?
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After basic understanding of loop predictive commoning, the problematic
> combined chain is:
>
> Loads-only chain 0x38b6730 (combined)
> max distance 0
> references:
> MEM[(real(kind=8) *)vectp_a.29_81] (id 1)
> offs
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>>
>> Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redhat-linux and survives regression tests.
>>
>> Ready to be installed?
>
> I'm not sure. If we have such zero distance refs in the IL
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Richard Biener
>>
>> Or a later pass introduced
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I was worried this patch would prevent too many other optimisations,
> so I looked into better options. I didn't find any. I tested the
> effects of the patch on 31 architectures (building GCC and then Linux
Thanks very much fo
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch is to fix PR80153. As analyzed in the PR, root cause is
>> tree_affine lacks
>> ability differentiating (unsigned)(ptr + offset) and (unsigned)ptr +
>> (unsigned)offs
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> After quite some pondering over this and other related bugs I propose
> the following for GCC 7 which tames down PRE a bit (back to levels
> of GCC 6). Technically it's the wrong place to fix this, we do
> have measures in place during e
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
>> On 2017.03.31 at 11:16 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Christophe,
>> >
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017.03.31 at 11:16 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Richard Biener
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at
And the patch..
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 30
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2017.04.03 at 15:20 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I'm re-testing the following variant.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>> 2017-04-03 Richard Biener
>>
>> PR middle-end/80281
>> * match.pd (A + (-B) -> A - B): Make sure to preserv
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when looking at various vectorization examples on s390x I noticed that
> we still peel vf/2 iterations for alignment even though vectorization
> costs of unaligned loads and stores are the same as normal loads/stores.
>
> A simple exampl
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Robin Dapp wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
>> Seems Richi added code like below comparing costs between aligned and
>> unsigned loads, and only peeling if it's beneficial:
>>
>> /* In case there are only loads with different unknown misalignments,
>> use
>> peel
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:39:30AM +, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> -find_depends (tree *expr_p, int *ws ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, void *data)
>> +find_inv_vars_cb (tree *expr_p, int *ws ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, void *data)
>> {
>> - bitmap *inv_vars = (bitma
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> I did a bootstrap and make check-{gcc,c++,fortran,lto} comparing the results
> to
> the baseline (subversion id 246975).
>
> There were 2 differences:
>
> The baseline failed on gcc.dg/sms-4.c but succeeded on gcc.dg/sms-1.c.
>
> Here ar
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:08:49PM +0100, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>> Thanks for testing it. Could you have a check if updated patch
>> resolves the ICE?
>> As for sms-*.c tests, I had difficulty in
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The patch adds a new test-case for the mentioned PR. Tested on
> x86_64-linux-gnu
> and ppc64le-linux-gnu.
>
> Ready for trunk or should I postpone it for next stage1?
Though can't approve, I think it's ok since we are in stage 1 n
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is the major part of this patch series. It rewrites cost computation
>> of ivopts using tree affine.
>> Apart from description given by cover message:
>> A) New computat
501 - 600 of 919 matches
Mail list logo
