https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Target Milestone|10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And I agree having such a named patterns (but also with standardized RTL in it,
so that jump.c can recognize those and redirect) looks like a good idea, we
could then enable partitioning if HAVE_LONG_UNCOND_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I bet even i386 shouldn't claim to support it if ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE ||
ix86_cmodel == CM_LARGE_PIC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
And for the moment we could declare !HAS_LONG_UNCOND_BRANCH as unsupported for
partitioning. The list of unconditionally supported targets then is
just cr16, ft32, i386, m32c, moxie and pru. aarch64 suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Roman Zhuykov from comment #6)
> First, I want here to mention that Richard have recently discussed
> partitioning in mailing list with Segher, starting from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patche
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #11 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
Thank you, I'm glad to see new ideas and some discussion.
> On the testcase itself
>
> diff --git a/gcc/modulo-sched.c b/gcc/modulo-sched.c
> index 77254b31b42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Makes me wonder if hot/cold splitting should use a special jump instruction
for crossing jumps which we could fixup/split very late so we see
(parallel
(set reg (label_ref ..))
(set pc (reg))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Pilot error.
loop->header is in the cold partition, both latch sources are as well,
the loop entry source is in the hot partition. We're correctly
redirecting that from hot -> cold to hot -> cold state so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Unfortunately I can't reproduce on todays trunk, will try rewiding backwards
> to the reporting time to have a closer look.
Strange, I can (tried r10-7514).
./c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
So let's try to address this in cfgloop.c - we're likely facing the situation
of
header:
...
if (...) goto latch1;
latch2:
goto header;
latch1: // in cold section
goto header;
where latch disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #5 from Roman Zhuykov ---
Created attachment 47820
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47820&action=edit
Considered "moving sms earlier" patch
I haven't tested "moving sms earlier" patch since 2011. But I remember t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
In general it's a bad idea to try go "back" to CFG layout mode and the fix is
to not do that. Which probably means scheduling pass_sms earlier and indeed
then best before pass_partition_blocks. I don't see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Roman Zhuykov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
18 matches
Mail list logo
