On Feb 20, 2015 9:27 AM, "Matt Turner" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Jason Ekstrand
wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Matt Turner
wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Connor Abbott
> >> wrote:
> >> > I agree with Ken that the regressions are small
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Connor Abbott
>> wrote:
>> > I agree with Ken that the regressions are small enough, and it seems
>> > they're mostly stuff we can prevent by
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Connor Abbott
> wrote:
> > I agree with Ken that the regressions are small enough, and it seems
> > they're mostly stuff we can prevent by being smarter when doing the
> > sel peephole, so it seems like the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> I agree with Ken that the regressions are small enough, and it seems
> they're mostly stuff we can prevent by being smarter when doing the
> sel peephole, so it seems like the cleanup that will probably help
> other passes is worth it.
So,
I agree with Ken that the regressions are small enough, and it seems
they're mostly stuff we can prevent by being smarter when doing the
sel peephole, so it seems like the cleanup that will probably help
other passes is worth it.
Reviewed-by: Connor Abbott
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Jason
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:03:15 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> We were already do this for ALU operations but we haven't for non-ALU
> operations. This changes that.
>
> total NIR instructions in shared programs: 2039883 -> 2022338 (-0.86%)
> NIR instructions in affected programs: 1768850
We were already do this for ALU operations but we haven't for non-ALU
operations. This changes that.
total NIR instructions in shared programs: 2039883 -> 2022338 (-0.86%)
NIR instructions in affected programs: 1768850 -> 1751305 (-0.99%)
helped:14244
HURT:
