--- Comment #12 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-12 13:34
---
Fixed on mainline (at least checking number of references from cross compiler).
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-09 19:20
---
Subject: Bug 34708
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 9 19:19:40 2008
New Revision: 131433
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131433
Log:
PR tree-optimization/34708
* tree-inline.c
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-08 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: Inlining heuristics issue
> yes, many PHIs are eliminated by coalescing. If you wanted to experiment at
> some point for more accuracy, you can look at the PHI arguments. Any argument
> which has a different b
--- Comment #9 from amacleod at redhat dot com 2008-01-08 13:27 ---
yes, many PHIs are eliminated by coalescing. If you wanted to experiment at
some point for more accuracy, you can look at the PHI arguments. Any argument
which has a different base name than the LHS of the PHI, or is a c
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-08 13:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=14900)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14900&action=view)
openbabel_perl.ii.bz2
Here is the original testcase, compile on ppc64-linux or with -> ppc64-linux
cross, with -O
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-08 12:22 ---
Subject: Re: Inlining heuristics issue
With some experimentation, the PHI change makes the costs to go up in
quite weird ways not taking into account that most of PHIs are
elliminated by coalescing. So I will stay with the
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-01-08 12:21 ---
Subject: Re: Inlining heuristics issue
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-08 12:15 ---
> Subject: Re: Inlining heuristics issue
>
> > I think
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-08 12:15 ---
Subject: Re: Inlining heuristics issue
> I think we want to account PHI nodes as real copies instead (d->count +=
> PHI_NUM_ARGS (...)) -- if they involve real operands (not VOPs).
We ignore cost of MODIFY_EXPR in assumpti
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-08 10:26 ---
I think we want to account PHI nodes as real copies instead (d->count +=
PHI_NUM_ARGS (...)) -- if they involve real operands (not VOPs).
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-07 23:46 ---
Subject: Re: New: Inlining heuristics issue
Hi,
I am testing the attached patch. It simply accounts two instructions
for each case label, I guess it does not make much sense to try to do
something smarter until we move lo
--- Comment #2 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-01-07 22:38 ---
Subject: Re: New: Inlining heuristics issue
I should also add that this is one of examples where Martin's switch
optimization pass would do miracles. If organized before inlining we
would end up with one static array.
Ho
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-07 22:09 ---
mine.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
12 matches
Mail list logo
