On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> After this patch, I got below test results with command line: make
>>> check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-prof.exp" -k
>>
>> That is expected if you d
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 10:12 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> This is a simple patch fixing ICE in tree-if-conv.c. Existing code does
>> not setup a variable (cond) when predicate of basic block is true and it
>> asserts on the variable. Interesting thi
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >> I haven't seen that. Unstable in what way?
>> > For GCC doesn't support FDO, it run below tests as you said:
>> >
>> > PASS: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c compilation, -g
>> > UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-1.c: Cannot run create_g
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> At the
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 10:11 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347 failed on some targets if the two
>> memory references are re-written into different forms by IVOPT. This
>> could be because of various reasons, for example, auto-in
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:28 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch removes support for -funsafe-loop-optimizations, as well as
>> -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations. By its name, this option does unsafe
>> optimizations by assuming all loops m
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On July 15, 2016 7:16:42 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Schmidt
> wrote:
>>On 07/15/2016 07:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>>> Bootstrap and test on x86_64. Is it OK?
>>
>>If you do this you'll also need to remove the use in config/bfin.
>
> OK with tha
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:28 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This patch removes suppor
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:55 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 6:28 PM, NightStrik
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 10:12 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> This is a simple patch fixing ICE in tree-if-conv.c. Existing code does
>> not setup a variable (cond) when predicate of basic block is true and it
>> asserts on the variable. Interesting thi
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Scalar evolution needs to prove no-overflow for source variable when
>> handling type conversion. This is important because otherwise we would fail
>> to recognize result of the
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Scalar
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/28/2016 12:18 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> This patch improves vectorizer in order to handle possible infinite loops
>> by versioning. Its changes fall in three categories.
>> A) Changes in vect_get_loop_niters. AT the moment, it com
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:50:31PM +, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch adds new option -Wmissed-loop-optimizations warning on loops
>> whose counter may overflow, as well as makes -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations an
>> alias to the new
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Previous patch removed warning message on loops whose counter might
>> overflow, while this patch adds it back. Reason is it's always good to have
>> a warning message indicati
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch adds support for constraint flags in loop structure. Different
>> to existing boolean flags which are set by niter analyzer, constraint flag
>> is mainly set by cons
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 09:35 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> This is prerequisite patch for fixing PR34114 which reveals a weakness of
>> GCC in analyzing niter for loop with NE_EXPR exit condition. For such
>> loops, we quite often need to check if del
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch fixes two issues in newly introduced pattern: (cond (cmp
>> (convert1? @1) @3) (convert2? @1) @2).
>> For PR78507, we need to check if from_type is INTEGRAL_TYPE_P expl
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 29 November 2016 at 20:38, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> 2016-11-26 Segher Boessenkool
>>>
>>> * combine.c (change_zero_ext): Also handle extends from a subreg
>>> to a mode bigger than that of the operand of the subreg.
>>
>> This patch in
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a rework of https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02007.html.
>> Though review comments suggested it could be merged with last kind
>> simplification
>> of fold_co
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch refactors IVOPT in three major aspects:
>> Firstly it rewrites iv_use groups. Use group is originally introduced only
>> for address type uses, this patch makes it gen
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Tree if-conversion sometimes cannot convert conditional array reference into
>> unconditional one. Root cause is GCC conservatively assumes newly
>> introduced array reference
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Currently tree if-conversion only supports PHIs with no more than two
>> arguments unless the loop is marked with "simd pragma". This patch makes
>> such PHIs supported uncondi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Currently tree if-conversion only supports PHIs with no more than two
>>> a
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Current
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:56 PM, marxin wrote:
> Hello.
>
> As profile-guided optimization can provide very useful information
> about basic block frequencies within a loop, following patch set leverages
> that information. It speeds up a single benchmark from upcoming SPECv6
> suite by 20% (-O2
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Tree if
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Honza asked me to explain the change more verbosely.
>> The patch simplify enhances verbose dump of IVOPTS so that
>> # of iterations is printed. Apart from that it also prin
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 3 May 2016 at 11:07, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Rich
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/10/2016 03:16 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Another way is to remove the use of id for struct iv_inv_expr_ent once
>> for all. We can change iv_ca.used_inv_expr and cost_pair.inv_expr_id
>> to pointers, and rename iv_inv
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 03:51 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2016 03:16 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> Another way is to remove the use of id for struct iv_inv_expr_
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On May 13, 2016 6:02:27 PM GMT+02:00, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>Hi,
>>As PR69848 reported, GCC vectorizer now generates comparison outside of
>>VEC_COND_EXPR for COND_REDUCTION case, as below:
>>
>> _20 = vect__1.6_8 != { 0, 0, 0, 0 };
>> vect_c
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:42 AM, marxin wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2016-04-25 Martin Liska
>
> * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c(comp_cost::operator=): New function.
> (comp_cost::infinite_cost_p): Likewise.
> (operator+): Likewise.
> (comp_cost::operator+=): Likewise.
> As profile-guided optimization can provide very useful information
> about basic block frequencies within a loop, following patch set leverages
> that information. It speeds up a single benchmark from upcoming SPECv6
> suite by 20% (-O2 -profile-generate/-fprofile use) and I think it can
> also i
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 03:04 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> After supporting all vcond/vcondu patterns in AArch64 backend, now we can
>> vectorize VEC_COND_EXPR with different type in comparison operands and value
>> operands on AArch64. GCC uses vect_
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On May 13, 2016 6:02:27 PM GMT+02:00, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>>Hi,
>>>>A
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/16/2016 03:55 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 05/16/2016 12:13 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> Could you please rebase this patch and the profiling one against
>>> latest trunk? The third pa
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 12:27 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> As profile-guided optimization can provide very useful information
>>> about basic block frequencies within a loop, following patch set leverages
>>> that info
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> When working on PR69710, I ran into this latent bug in which alignment
>> information is wrongly updated for pointer variables. It results in memory
>> exceptions on x86_64 afte
Ping.
Thanks,
bin
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> Alan and Renlin noticed that some vcond patterns are not supported in
> AArch64(or AArch32?) backend, and they both had some patches fixing this.
> After investigation, I agree with them that vcond/vcondu in AArch64'
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 05/17/2016 12:27 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> As profile-guided optimization can provide very useful information
>>> about basic block frequencies within a loop, following patch set leverages
>>> that info
Ping.
Thanks,
bin
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> Loop niter computes inaccurate bound information for different loops. This
> patch is to improve it by using loop initial condition in
> determine_value_range. Generally, loop niter is computed by subtracting
> start v
Ping.
Thanks,
bin
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> For now, SCEV may compute iv base in the form of "(signed T)((unsigned
> T)base + step))". This complicates other optimizations/analysis depending
> on SCEV because it's hard to dive into type conversions. For many cas
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 03:36 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Loop niter computes inaccurate bound information for different loops.
>> This
>> patch is to improve it by using loop initial condition in
>> determine_value_range. Generally, loop niter is co
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/28/2015 03:38 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> For now, SCEV may compute iv base in the form of "(signed T)((unsigned
>> T)base + step))". This complicates other optimizations/analysis depending
>> on SCEV because it's hard to dive into ty
Thanks for all your reviews.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Loop niter computes inaccurate bound information for different loops. This
>> patch is to improve it by using loop initial condition in
>> determine
de is collecting some comparison
basic block of loop?
Thanks,
bin
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Ajit
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Bin.Cheng
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 3:32 PM
> To: Richa
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bin.Cheng [mailto:amker.ch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:08 PM
> To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal
> Cc: Richard Biener; Bin Cheng; GCC Patches; Vinod Kathail;
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/17/2015 04:01 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> + c0 = fold_convert (type, c0);
>>> + c1 = fold_convert (type, c1);
>>> +
>>> + if (operand_equal_p (var, c0, 0))
&g
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've used this patch in the past for another port, and now again for
> rs6000, and I think it is generally useful. It prints very verbose
> information to the dump file about how ivopts comes up with its costs
> for various form
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> For now, SCEV may compute iv base in the form of "(signed T)((unsigned
>> T)base + step))". This complicates other optimizations/analysis depending
>> on SCEV because it's hard t
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/25/2015 05:06 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> When SRA completely scalarizes an array, this patch changes the
>> generated accesses from e.g.
>>
>> MEM[(int[8] *)&a + 4B] = 1;
>>
>> to
>>
>> a[1] = 1;
>>
>> This overcomes a limitation in dom2
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > On 08/25/2015 05:06 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
>> >>
>> >> When SRA completely scalarizes an
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal
wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Bin Cheng
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 3:12 PM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [PATCH GCC][rework]I
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This patch is a new approach to fix PR66388. IVO today computes iv_use with
>> iv_cand which has at least same type precision as the use. On 64bit
>> platforms like AArch64, this
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> This patch is a new approach to fix PR66388. IVO today computes iv_use with
>>&g
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> When calling get_shiftadd_cost, the mult_op is stripped at caller places.
>> We should look into unnecessary conversion in op1 before checking equality,
>> otherwise it computes wron
Just realized that I missed the updated patch before. Here it is...
Thanks,
bin
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 20
Ping.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> This is a rework for
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02335.html, with review
> comments addressed. For now, SCEV may compute iv base in the form of
> "(signed T)((unsigned T)base + step))". This complicates other
>
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>>
>> On 7 November 2016 at 09:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> > The following fixes an oversight when computing alignment in the
>> > vectorizer.
>> >
>> > Bootstrapped and te
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7 November 2016 at 23:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 7 November 2016 at 22:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Are the libstdc++ changes OK for trunk?
>>
>> Yes, I like the approach, thanks.
>
> The new te
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I re-send all patches sent by Ilya earlier for review which support
> vectorization of loop epilogues and loops with low trip count. We
> assume that the only patch - vec-tails-07-combine-tail.patch - was not
> approved by Jeff.
rking on this project.
>
> Any help will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
> Yuri.
>
> 2016-11-09 13:37 GMT+03:00 Bin.Cheng :
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I re-send all patches sent by Ilya earlier for review wh
lso it's not
related to SVE, As a matter of fact, I haven't read any document about
SVE yet. Sorry again for the false impression conveyed by previous
messages.
Thanks,
bin
>
> Thanks.
> Yuri.
>
> 2016-11-09 14:46 GMT+03:00 Bin.Cheng :
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Evgeny Kudryashov
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm facing the following problem related to ivopts. The problem is that GCC
>> generates a lot of induction variables and as a result
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi Bin
>
> On 8 November 2016 at 13:37, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Test gcc.dg/vect/vect-cond-2.c can be vectorized by GCC now, this patch
>> drops the xfail.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>> 2016-11-04 Bin Cheng
>>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Evgeny Kudryashov
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm facing the following problem related to ivopts. The probl
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:13 AM, kugan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On 04/11/16 04:36, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 02:03:47PM +1100, kugan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ...snip...
>>>
>>> I have also separated the constant parameter conversion out and posted as
>>> https://gcc.gnu.or
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Evgeny Kudryashov wrote:
> On 2016-11-10 13:30, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I see the cost problem with your test now. When computing an address
>> type iv_use with a candidate, the computation consists of two parts,
>> for
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Currently test gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f checks all
>> predictive commoning opportunities for all possible loops. This makes it
>> fragile because vectorizer may
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Current
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Nov 14 2016, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>> PR missed-optimization/77881
>> * combine.c (simplify_comparison): Remove useless subregs
>> also inside the loop, not just after it.
>> (make_compound_operation): Recognize s
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>> B) Depending on ilp, I think below test strings fail for long time with
>> haswell:
>> ! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "Executing predictive comm
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 11/18/16 12:58, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 17 November 2016 at 10:23, Kyrill Tkachov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/11/16 12:58, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This patch enables the ldrd/strd peephole rules unconditionall
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Doug Gilmore wrote:
> I haven't seen any followups to this discussion of Bin's patch to
> PR68303 and PR69710, the patch submission:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02000.html
>
> Discussion:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00761.html
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a rework of
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02005.html. According to
>> review comment, I extended the original patch and made it covering last kind
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> This
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Bin Cheng wrote:
>
> +(for cmp (lt le gt ge)
> + (simplify
> + (cond (cmp@0 (convert1? @1) INTEGER_CST@3) (convert2? @1) INTEGER_CST@2)
> + (with
> + {
> + tree from_type = TREE_TYPE (@1);
> + tree c1_type = TRE
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is actually the review suggestion for patch
>> @https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg02341.html, but I forgot to
>> incorporate it when committing that patch. Here
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
Here is the patch.
Thanks,
bin
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> Turns out the check on number of iv_uses is still too large on target hppa.
> It only supports small offset in REG+offset addressing mode for floating
> point load/store. Even with this restriction, the grouped version is better
> than
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Marcus Shawcroft
>>> wrote:
On 18 November 2014 at 08:34, Bin Cheng wrote:
> 201
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Pi
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Andrew Pins
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Bin.Che
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> As mentioned in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00609.html, the
> load/store pair peepholes currently accept volatile mem which can
> cause wrong code as the architecture does not define which part of the
> pair happe
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/05/14 05:15, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the
>> ivopt
>> issue still exists.
>>
>> Current candidate selecting algorithm tends to select fewer candidates
>> given
>> below
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the ivopt
>> issue still exists.
>>
>> Current candidate selecting algorithm tends to select fewer candidates give
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Though PR62178 is hidden by recent cost change in aarch64 backend, the ivopt
>>&
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Though PR
CCing Sebastian.
Thanks,
bin
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bin.Cheng
Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH PR62178]Improve candidate selecting in IVOPT, 2nd try.
To: Richard Biener
Cc: Bin Cheng , GCC Patches
, Zdenek Dvorak
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bin Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> As commented at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00684.html,
> this is a simple patch enabling neon memset inlining on
> cortex-a53/cortex-a57 in AArch32 mode.
>
> Test on
> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf/--with-cpu=cortex-a57/--with
Please ignore this one, I will further refine it. Sorry for disturbing!
Thanks,
bin
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 201
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:00:01PM +, Jiong Wang wrote:
>> On 17/12/14 15:54, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >ick. I realize we don't have SSA form on RTL but doesn't DF provide
>> >at least some help in looking up definition statements f
701 - 800 of 919 matches
Mail list logo
