On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:55:07PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > What about the example I gave above? Is it unrealistic for compilers
> > > do ever do something like this, or is it just unlikely to gain much
> > > performance, or is it
Hi,
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> > What about the example I gave above? Is it unrealistic for compilers
> > do ever do something like this, or is it just unlikely to gain much
> > performance, or is it just that GCC does not do this today?
>
> GCC does not do this today with
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:49 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 23,
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 20:10 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:49 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM,
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 11:49 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> > I'd like to
On 02/24/2016 05:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Note that if a user writes
if (p == d)
{
... do lots of stuff via p ...
}
GCC might rewrite accesses to p as accesses to d and thus expose
those opportunities. Is that a transform that isn't valid then or is
the code written by
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:49:29AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> > I'd
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
>> >
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 18:33 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
> > > optimizations
On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
> > optimizations that may turn data dependencies of pointers into control
> >
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
> optimizations that may turn data dependencies of pointers into control
> dependencies. I'm thinking about all optimizations or transformations
>
I'd like to know, based on the GCC experience, how important we consider
optimizations that may turn data dependencies of pointers into control
dependencies. I'm thinking about all optimizations or transformations
that guess that a pointer might have a specific value, and then create
12 matches
Mail list logo