https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
I'd propose that this bug can now be closed. If nobody objects, I'll do that
later this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-21 14:41:13 UTC ---
One more data point. I repeated the experiment using -fsched-pressure.
Although this reduced the degradations considerably, the overall results are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-13
17:30:14 UTC ---
Just adding some status information well after the fact...
We experimented with adding powerpc64 hooks to use the parallel reassociation
support from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-06
16:42:56 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Sep 6 16:42:47 2011
New Revision: 178602
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178602
Log:
PR middle-end/44382:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 04:29 ---
*** Bug 45671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-04 13:08 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Because our tree reassoc doesn't re-associate them.
The tree reassoc pass makes it slower:
[...@gnu-6 44382]$ cat x.i
extern int a, b, c, d, e, f;
void
foo ()
{
a = (b * c) * (d * e);
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 13:21 ---
Yes, reassoc linearizes instead of building a tree (saves one (or was it two?)
registers at best).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44382
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-04 13:56 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Yes, reassoc linearizes instead of building a tree (saves one (or was it two?)
registers at best).
Should we always build a tree? It may increase register pressure.
--
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-04 14:40 ---
tree-ssa-reassoc.c has
2. Left linearization of the expression trees, so that (A+B)+(C+D)
becomes (((A+B)+C)+D), which is easier for us to rewrite later.
During linearization, we place the operands of
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-02 15:15 ---
Because our tree reassoc doesn't re-associate them.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
13 matches
Mail list logo
