Re: Add cold attribute to one time construction APIs

sure. -- From: Jonathan Wakely Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:13 AM To: Aditya K Cc: libstdc++ ; gcc-patches Subject: Re: Add cold attribute to one time construction APIs   Please CC the libstdc++ list on all libstdc++ patches. On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 17:51, Aditya K wrote: > > R

Re: Add cold attribute to one time construction APIs

FYI libc++ patch sent for review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85873

Re: Add cold attribute to one time construction APIs

_GLIBCXX_NOTHROW _GLIBCXX_COLD; // DSO destruction. int __cxa_atexit(void (*)(void*), void*, void*) _GLIBCXX_NOTHROW; void __cxa_finalize(void*); // TLS destruction. int ``` From: Aditya K Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:47 AM To: Jeff Law via Gcc-patches ; jwakely@gm

Add cold attribute to one time construction APIs

This would help compiler optimize local static objects. ``` commit e2f299679ddf56a6d6d71ea9d589cd76b2ca107b Author: Aditya Kumar <1894981+hiradi...@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu Aug 13 09:41:34 2020 -0700 Add cold attribute to one time construction APIs __cxa_guard_acquire

Re: [PATCH] improve string find algorithm

Thanks, -Aditya From: Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 6:33 AM To: Aditya K Cc: Aditya Kumar; Sebastian Pop; libstd...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve string find algorithm   On 06/01/17 22:19 +, Aditya K

Re: [PATCH] improve string find algorithm

> Could you try the corrected patch on your benchmarks? For the test-case you gave there is a regression. Benchmark    Time   CPU      Iterations --- Without

Re: [PATCH] improve string find algorithm

Ping. From: Aditya Kumar Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 11:46 AM To: libstd...@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; hiradi...@msn.com; Aditya Kumar Subject: [PATCH] improve string find algorithm   Here is an improved version of basic_string::find. The idea is

[PATCH] Added noexcept on constructors

--- libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog | 3 +++ libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog b/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog index 08d9229..18924c4 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog +++ b/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog

RE: [PATCH 1/2] [graphite] Move codegen related functions to graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c

Thanks for the update. I'll fix that asap. -Aditya > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 08:36:58 -0500 > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [graphite] Move codegen related functions to > graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c > From: dje@gmail.com > To: hiradi...@msn.com;

RE: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE

, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:02:43 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE From: richard.guent...@gmail.com To: tob...@grosser.es CC: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; s@samsung.com; seb

RE: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE

, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:31:32 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE From: richard.guent...@gmail.com To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: tob...@grosser.es; gcc

RE: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE

On August 14, 2015 4:31:23 PM GMT+02:00, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:47:05 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE From: richard.guent...@gmail.com To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: tob...@grosser.es; gcc

RE: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:02:43 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [graphite] Constrain only on INTEGER_TYPE From: richard.guent...@gmail.com To: tob...@grosser.es CC: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; s@samsung.com; seb...@gmail.com On Wed,

RE: [PATCH] Rename parameters which are within scop

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 02:22:19 +0200 From: tob...@grosser.es To: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org CC: seb...@gmail.com; richard.guent...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rename parameters which are within scop Hi Aditya, could you

RE: [PATCH] Discard Scops for which entry==exit

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:53:25 +0200 From: tob...@grosser.es To: hiradi...@msn.com; seb...@gmail.com CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Discard Scops for which entry==exit On 06/30/2015 05:47 PM, Aditya K wrote: Hi Tobias, A test case (gcc

RE: [PATCH] Discard Scops for which entry==exit

Hi Tobias, A test case (gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/pr18792.c) came up when we removed `graphite-scop-detection.c:limit_scops'. The test case is a scop where entry==exit, BB5 (*#) - BB6 (#); BB6 - BB5; In this case BB2 is out of the scop. This is basically an empty (infinite) loop with no

RE: Remove splay_tree from gimplify.c

Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:41:55 +0200 From: ja...@redhat.com To: l...@redhat.com CC: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Remove splay_tree from gimplify.c On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:34:46AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: So the

RE: [PATCH] Print Pass Names

Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:07:30 -0600 From: l...@redhat.com To: hiradi...@msn.com; richard.guent...@gmail.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Print Pass Names On 05/26/2015 08:32 AM, Aditya K wrote: I don't have commit access. I would

RE: [PATCH] Break when has_sample is true

I don't have commit access. I would appreciate if someone does that for me. Thanks, -Aditya Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 08:14:41 -0600 From: l...@redhat.com To: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Break when has_sample is true

RE: [PATCH] Print Pass Names

] Print Pass Names On 05/22/2015 02:38 PM, Aditya K wrote: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Print Pass Names From: richard.guent...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 21:32:24 +0200 To: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On May 22, 2015 6:32:38 PM GMT+02:00

RE: [PATCH] Print Pass Names

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Print Pass Names From: richard.guent...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 21:32:24 +0200 To: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On May 22, 2015 6:32:38 PM GMT+02:00, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote: Currently, when we

[PATCH] Print Pass Names

Currently, when we print the passes it does not print its name. This becomes confusing when we want to print all the passes at once (e.g., -fdump-tree-all-all=stderr pass.dump). This patch adds functionality to print the pass name. It passes bootstrap (with default configurations). Hope this

RE: Fix PR48052: loop not vectorized if index is unsigned int

I tested this patch and it passes bootstrap and no extra failures. Thanks -Aditya Symbolically evaluate conditionals, and subtraction when additional constraints are provided. Adding this evaluation mechanism helps vectorize some loops on 64bit machines because on 64bit, a typecast appears

RE: Refactor gimple_expr_type

Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:11:52 +0200 Subject: Re: Refactor gimple_expr_type From: richard.guent...@gmail.com To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote

RE: Refactor gimple_expr_type

Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 11:33:16 +0200 Subject: Re: Refactor gimple_expr_type From: richard.guent...@gmail.com To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com

Fix PR48052: loop not vectorized if index is unsigned int

w.r.t. the PR48052, here is the patch which finds out if scev would wrap or not. The patch symbolically evaluates if valid_niter= loop-nb_iterations is true. In that case the scev would not wrap (??). Currently, we only look for two special 'patterns', which are sufficient to analyze the simple

RE: Refactor gimple_expr_type

Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:08:58 +0200 Subject: Re: Refactor gimple_expr_type From: richard.guent...@gmail.com To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote

Remove splay_tree from gimplify.c

The function `splay_tree_node splay_tree_lookup (splay_tree, splay_tree_key);' updates the nodes every time a lookup is done. IIUC, There are places where we call this function in a loop i.e., we lookup different elements every time. e.g., In this exaple we are looking for a different `t' in

RE: Refactor gimple_expr_type

Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 11:53:57 -0400 From: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Refactor gimple_expr_type On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 07:13:35AM +, Aditya K wrote: Hi, I have tried to refactor

Refactor gimple_expr_type

Hi, I have tried to refactor gimple_expr_type to make it more readable. Removed the switch block and redundant if. Please review this patch. Thanks, -Aditya gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-05-15  hiraditya  hiradi...@msn.com         * gimple.h (gimple_expr_type): Refactor to make it concise. Remove

RE: Fix compiler warnings

Thank you very much Jakub. -Aditya Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:58:11 +0200 From: ja...@redhat.com To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Fix compiler warnings On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 04:37:49PM +, Aditya K wrote: Thanks

RE: Patch: Refactor number_of_iterations_exit

Subject: Re: Patch: Refactor number_of_iterations_exit From: richard.guent...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:47:37 +0200 To: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On May 7, 2015 6:27:28 PM GMT+02:00, Aditya K hiradi...@msn.com wrote: Hi, I

Patch: Refactor number_of_iterations_exit

Hi, I refactored number_of_iterations_exit a little bit. I hope it is helpful. The idea is to move the call to function dominated_by_p after some sanity checks so as to avoid call to it. Thanks, -Aditya 2015-05-07  Aditya Kumar  hiradi...@msn.com     * tree-ssa-loop-niter.c

Fix compiler warnings

I recently compiled gcc with clang and found few useful warnings (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-05/msg00015.html, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-05/msg00041.html). I have a patch to fix some of those, it passes bootstrap, please apply these if it is useful. Thanks, -Aditya

RE: Fix compiler warnings

18:26:10 +0200 From: ja...@redhat.com To: hiradi...@msn.com CC: rdsandif...@googlemail.com; pola...@redhat.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Fix compiler warnings On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 04:22:13PM +, Aditya K wrote: Thanks Richard, Jakub and Trevor for the feedback. I have

RE: Refactor gcc/tree-vectorize.c:vectorize_loops

, Aditya K wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I have added comment and properly indented the code. I made a couple more formatting fixes (spaces - tab line wrapping), improved the ChangeLog, did a bootstrap regression test on x86_64-linux-gnu and installed the final patch on the trunk. Thanks

RE: Refactor gcc/tree-vectorize.c:vectorize_loops

-vectorize.c:vectorize_loops On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 09:53:24PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 04/28/2015 08:20 PM, Aditya K wrote: Hi, This is a small patch where I moved a portion of code from the function vectorize_loops outside to improve readability. Please see the patch attached and give comments

Refactor gcc/tree-vectorize.c:vectorize_loops

Hi, This is a small patch where I moved a portion of code from the function vectorize_loops outside to improve readability. Please see the patch attached and give comments for improvements. Thanks -Aditya refactor-vect Description: Binary data