--- Comment #18 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-24 21:30 ---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
Note I think the proposed patch attached here will fix PR 32200.
Nop.
Reverting the patch and diffing the assembly code for i686-linux on
both codes from
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-24 03:53
---
Fixed.
Note I think the proposed patch attached here will fix PR 32200. That testcase
was not fixed the VRP patch. The VRP patch fixes the case where we have IV -
IV inside the loop.
--
pinskia at gcc dot
--- Comment #16 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 17:06 ---
Subject: Bug 19590
Author: spop
Date: Thu Jun 21 17:06:05 2007
New Revision: 125925
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125925
Log:
PR tree-optimization/19590
* tree-vrp.c
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 06:30
---
*** Bug 30098 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2006-04-10
09:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=11235)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11235action=view)
proposed fix
This patch fixes the problem, but probably it is a more general optimization
fix than
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 15:31
---
I wonder if it helps placing this between cunroll and ivopts...
void foo(int n, int m, int stridex, int stridey, int stridex2, int stridey2,
double *x, double *y)
{
for (int k=0; km; ++k)
for (int j=0; jn;
--- Comment #14 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-10 15:53 ---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
I wonder if it helps placing this between cunroll and ivopts...
void foo(int n, int m, int stridex, int stridey, int stridex2, int
--- Comment #10 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2006-04-08 21:13
---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
The new SCC value numberer for PRE i'm working on gets this case right (and
this is in fact, one of the advantages of SCC based value numbering).
Is
--- Comment #10 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2006-04-08 21:13
---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
The new SCC value numberer for PRE i'm working on gets this case right (and
this is in fact, one of the advantages of SCC based value numbering).
--- Comment #11 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 23:20
---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not
eliminated
--- Comment #10 from stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com 2006-04-08 21:13
---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 02:26 ---
Comparing the IVs themselves take no time, now figuring out which one are equal
to which set could take some time, at max O(n^2) time. Now n is going to be
small for most cases anyways.
--
pinskia at gcc dot
--- Comment #9 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-08 02:53 ---
Actually, it's not really expensive at all.
It's certainly not N^2.
The new SCC value numberer for PRE i'm working on gets this case right (and
this is in fact, one of the advantages of SCC based value numbering).
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2005-11-14 09:27 ---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
They can happen due to macro expansion or C++ template inlining.
And do they?
I wonder if PRE for scalar-evolutions would be useful
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 10:32 ---
It would be more interesting to measure than think ;-)
My experience is that when it is in Briggs' test suite, it usually also happens
in actually useful code. But, only the numbers will tell :-)
Zdenek is right,
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 09:45 ---
They can happen due to macro expansion or C++ template inlining.
And do they?
If they can, they will do. Will this regularly happen? I think no.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19590
--- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 10:02 ---
This is easy to implement; the question is whether we really want to waste
compile time to handle this type of examples that do not seem very likely to
appear in practice.
--
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 11:47 ---
They can happen due to macro expansion or C++ template inlining. I wonder if
PRE for scalar-evolutions would be useful ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19590
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 01:43 ---
This hasn't been addressed yet in r106784.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
18 matches
Mail list logo
