Well, you seem to keep not reading what I write. I am not opposed
to adding -fopt-info/report nor to funnel messages to stdout/err. What
I am opposed is the way you want to introduce them. I want you to
fix what we dump into dump files, so that both -fopt-report and -fopt-info
can be
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which
There are two proposals here. One is -fopt-info which prints out
informational notes to stderr, and the other is -fopt-report which is
more elaborate form of dump files. Are you object to both or just the
opt-report one? The former is no different from any other
informational notes we already
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
x...@google.com (Rong Xu) writes:
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
to control the printing of
While discussion for trunk version is still going, it is ok for google branches.
thanks,
David
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Rong Xu x...@google.com wrote:
After some off-line discussion, we decided to use a more general approach
to control the printing of optimization messages/warnings.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
This warnings/notes are caused
by inconsistent profile due to data race (which is currently common in
multi-thread programs),
I never quite understood why the gcov counters are not simply marked
__thread. This would make
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM, konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
Minimized the crash to this:
struct Foo {
unsigned bf1:1;
unsigned bf2:1;
unsigned bf3:1;
};
void foo (struct Foo *ob) {
ob-bf2 = 1;
}
D.2731_4 = ob_1(D)-bf2;
__asan_base_addr.2 = (long unsigned int)
what kind of failures?
David
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM, konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/10/19 20:38:35, kcc wrote:
Added code to avoid bitfields.
Is there anything I should know about splitting basic blocks in the
presence of EH?
Currently, asan fails on
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM, konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/10/18 22:52:33, davidxl wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5272048/diff/18001/tree-asan.c
File tree-asan.c (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5272048/diff/18001/tree-asan.c#newcode325
tree-asan.c:325:
It will be weird to put the instrumentation pass inside loop opt,
besides memory loads which are loop invariants and redundant stores in
loop should be handled by pre/pde.
+cc Richard Guenther
You may want to ask the middle-end maintainer to review your code at
this point if you want it to be in
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Rong Xu x...@google.com wrote:
Suppress verbose notes/warnings printed in FDO-use compilation.
(1) Add option -fprofile-use-verbose.
Gcc currently does not emit informational messages on high level
transformations such as inlining, value profiling
This patch is for google/main which is 4.7 based, but the validated
version is in google_46 branch (which is based on 4.6).
By the way (given that you are from intel), do you know if linux
kernel can be built with icc with PGO turned on? Our intern Xiaotian
has tried to use icc (12.0) to built
ok.
David
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
Attached is the new patch. Bootstrapped on x86_64, no regressions.
gcc/ChangeLog.google-4_6:
2011-10-08 Dehao Chen de...@google.com
Add a flag (-frecord-gcc-switches-in-elf) to record compiler
Ok for google branches.
1) document the difference of this option with -grecord-gcc-switches
(this one only record codegen related options, and recorded in debug
section), and with -frecord-gcc-switches?
2) may be better to use option name: -frecord-gcc-switches-in-object
thanks,
David
On Sun,
Yes, this is useful for static prediction tuning.
David
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01293.html
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Yes, this will improve test coverage option's usability, but please
provide the example to explain the issues.
David
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
This patch disables early
ok.
David
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Easwaran Raman era...@google.com wrote:
This fixes two issues with sampled profile collection. It delays
cleanup of instrumentation_to_be_sampled after all callgraph nodes
have been instrumented and prevents gcov_sample_counter_decl and
Yes, this will improve test coverage option's usability, but please
provide the example to explain the issues.
David
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com wrote:
This patch disables early inlining when --coverage option is
specified. This improves coverage data in
Sri, please add a new api to do cpu_indicator initialization on demand
to be used in IFUNC context. Perhaps also add some debug check to make
sure no conflicting cpu model is set.
Ok for google branches for now while the discussion continues.
thanks,
David
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM,
Is there a standard way to force this init function to be called
before all ctors? Adding a ctor in one crtx.o ?
David
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at
IFUNC selector will need to call get_cpu_indicator (as proposed by HJ
or something similar), while in other contexts, the implementation
should find a way to make sure the indicator is already initialized
such that the builtins accessing the features can be directly used
(See also Michael and
Good for google branches.
Need to measure the performance and size impact on SPEC2k/06 with this
patch and the previous hotcaller patch for trunk.
thanks,
David
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Mark Heffernan meh...@google.com wrote:
This patch bumps up the parameter 'hot-bb-count-fraction'
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
CPUID to get target features and set global vars corresponding to the
features. So, the builtin should be folded by into the appropriate
variable in libgcc.
Hm, but then
Compile the following program using 4.6 or trunk compiler and run it,
the program will seg fault. The problem is that the D3_Spec's primary
vtable has a null entry for virtual function id which it overrides.
The root cause is that the base class's virtual function list for the
derived class is
A new patch with lightly modified the test case.
David
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Compile the following program using 4.6 or trunk compiler and run it,
the program will seg fault. The problem is that the D3_Spec's primary
vtable has a null
The attached patch fixed a minor bug in cfg fixup -- the outgoing edge
profile count is not scaled after inlining leading to warnings printed
in IR dump -- 'Invalid sum of ...'.
Bootstrap and tested on x86-64/linux, ok for trunk?
Thanks,
David
p2
Description: Binary data
The attached patch fixed the problem. The root cause of the problem is
due to the ordering change of profile_estimation and tree_profile
pass. In trunk, the function/node frequency is not computed after
profile annotation is done leading to missing information. Another
side effect of this breakage
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Rong Xu x...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, davi...@google.com wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c
File ipa.c (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4798045/diff/1/ipa.c#newcode1034
ipa.c:1034: {
Has varpool node
original change, the visibility analysis change won't
kick in). we also need to change varpool_node_link() to merge the
local attribute.
-Rong
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rong Xu x...@google.com wrote
Your fix works ok for me (on x86-64/linux) too.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Rainer Orth
r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
Three new testcases seem to XPASS everywhere, at least on all of my
targets:
XPASS: gcc.dg/inline_1.c (test for excess errors)
XPASS:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Good point -- but why does SRA have to be so complicated? If it just
do structure expansion and let subsequent phases to clean it up
, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
Compiling the test case in the patch with -O2 -m32 without the fix,
the program will abort. The problem is a var decl whose address is
taken is not marked as addressable leading to bad SSA update (missing
VUSE). (the triaging used
, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
It is used to indicate the fact the var decl needs to have a memory
home (addressable) -- is there another way to do this? this is to
avoid the following situation:
1) after SRA before update SSA, the IR looks like:
MEM
Bootstrap and tested on linux/x86_64.
Ok for trunk?
David
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Compiling the test case in the patch with -O2 -m32 without the fix,
the program will abort. The problem is a var decl whose address is
taken is not marked
Compiling the test case in the patch with -O2 -m32 without the fix,
the program will abort. The problem is a var decl whose address is
taken is not marked as addressable leading to bad SSA update (missing
VUSE). (the triaging used the the .after and .after_cleanup dump diff
and found the
Ok for google/main.
David
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Sharad Singhai (शरद सिंघई)
sing...@google.com wrote:
Sorry, Rietveld didn't send out the updated patch along with my mail.
Here it is.
Sharad
2011-06-14 Sharad Singhai sing...@google.com
Google Ref 3
*
Backported r174930 to google/main.
David
Committed after Bootstrapping and regression testing on x86-64/linux.
The follow up patch will come soon.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun
Attached the patch.
David
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
This is the second (hopefully the last in the series of dumper
changes) follow-up patch.
It adds a control so that verbosity of the dump can be greatly reduced
(and hopefully simplify gcc
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
Patch is temporally rolled back.
Richard, looks like deeper pass manager cleanup is needed -- I would
like to delay that. For now
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
See attached.
Hmm. I don't like how you still wire dumping in the TODO routines.
Doesn't it work to just dump the body from
Backported -fdump-passes option impl.
David
Can you send me a trace? I can not reproduce the problem.
David
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions
7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per
function legality checks are moved into the executor and the
optimization heuristic checks (optimize for size) remain
at 3:32 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Though I can not reproduce it, it might be related to what Richard
mentioned in the review -- The TODO's are executed though the pass is
not. This opened up a can of worm -- I will revert the patches for
now.
David
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes are
just removing TODO_dump_func. The major change is in passes.c
, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Your patch doesn't really improve this but adds to the confusion.
+ /* Override dump TODOs. */
+ if (dump_file (pass
Ok -- that sounds good.
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011
Any suggestions on the dump position specification string, before and
after is not enough. How about
start, before, after, and finish?
I.e.
-fdump-tree-pre-start -- dump IR before TODO_start of PRE pass
-fdump-tree-pre-before -- dump IR just before PRE after its TODO start finishes
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 09:51, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Any suggestions on the dump position specification string, before and
after is not enough. How about
start, before, after, and finish?
I.e
flags (O2, -ftree-vrp, -fgcse etc) --- compiler
heuristic (optimize for size/speed) --- -fdisable/enable forcing pass
options --- legality check
Testing under going. Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Ok -- that sounds good
The dump-pass patch with test case.
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Please review the attached two patches.
In the first patch, gate functions are cleaned up. All the per
function legality checks are moved into the executor
name. By default, the IR dump and debug
dump will be dumped into the same file which is the current behavior.
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The following is the patch that does the job. Most of the changes are
just removing TODO_dump_func
Ok for google/main. A good candidate patch for trunk too.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Mark Heffernan meh...@google.com wrote:
This patch pessimizes stack accounting during inlining. This enables
setting a firm stack size limit (via parameters large-stack-frame and
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after testing?
I expect the testcases will be quite fragile, so
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
Ok with this one?
+/* Dump all optimization passes. */
+
+void
Your patch doesn't really improve this but adds to the confusion.
+ /* Override dump TODOs. */
+ if (dump_file (pass-todo_flags_finish TODO_dump_func)
+ (dump_flags TDF_BEFORE))
+ {
+ pass-todo_flags_finish = ~TODO_dump_func;
+ pass-todo_flags_start |=
Please take a look at the revised one.
Thanks,
David
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after
This is the patch with max id removed.
Thanks,
David
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote
Is this patch ok?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after testing?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote
Is this one ok?
Thanks,
David
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
Ok with this one?
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1
Looks good to me, but you need an OK from a maintainer.
Thanks,
David
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com wrote:
A recent change introduced decl_uid in the “;; Function ” header in dump
files. This breaks -fcompare-debug (and bootstrap-debug-lean), because
decl
This is the version of the patch that walks through pass lists.
Ok with this one?
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Xinliang
ok for google/main.
David
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Martin Thuresson mart...@google.com wrote:
This patch from Neil Vachharajani and Dehao Chen improves mcf by using
minimum cost circulation instead of minimum cost flow to smooth profiles.
It also introduces a parameter for controlling
Counter overflow?
David
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Martin Thuresson mart...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Smoothing works for sample FDO and profile data from multi-threaded
programs. You won't see any difference in SPEC
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The following patch implements the a new option that dumps gcc PASS
configuration. The sample output is attached. There is one
The attached is the split #1 patch that enhances -fenable/disable.
Ok after testing?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM
The attached is patch-2 (-fdump-passes) and a sample output:
Ok for trunk?
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li
Hi, this is a simple patch that support dump_before flag. E.g,
-fdump-tree-pre-before
This is useful for diffing the the IR before and after a pass.
Gcc dumping needs more cleanups -- such as allowing IR only dump,
allowing IR dumping for a particular function etc. The exposure of
'dumpfile'
Sorry about it. Here it is.
David
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Hi, this is a simple patch that support dump_before flag. E.g,
-fdump-tree-pre-before
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:26:24 -0700
Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Hi, this is a simple patch that support dump_before flag. E.g,
-fdump-tree-pre-before
This is useful for diffing the the IR
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
The attached are two simple follow up patches
1) the first patch does some refactorization on function header
dumping (with more
The following patch implements the a new option that dumps gcc PASS
configuration. The sample output is attached. There is one
limitation: some placeholder passes that are named with '*xxx' are
note registered thus they are not listed. They are not important as
they can not be turned on/off
The new patch is attached. The test (c,c++,fortran, java, ada) is on going.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Honza, are you ok with the pass name change?
David
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
This is the complete patch for pass name fixes (with test case changes
Please discard the previous one. This is the right one:
David
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The new patch is attached. The test (c,c++,fortran, java, ada) is on going.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li davi
, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
The latest version that only exports 2 functions from passes.c.
Ok with ...
@@ -637,4 +637,8 @@ extern bool first_pass_instance;
/* Declare for plugins. */
extern void do_per_function_toporder (void (*) (void *), void *);
+extern void
Committed.
David
This is the complete patch for pass name fixes (with test case changes).
David
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
The attached are two simple follow up patches
1) the first patch does some refactorization on function header
dumping (with more
The latest version that only exports 2 functions from passes.c.
David
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos
Ping. The link to the message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg01303.html
Thanks,
David
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Ping.
David
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Ok to check
Hi, the following trial patch fixed PR 48988 which is a regression.
Bootstrap and tested on x86/linux. Verified the reported failure is fixed.
Ok for trunk?
David
2011-05-22 David Li davi...@google.com
PR tree-optimization/48988
* tree-ssa-uninit.c
Ping.
David
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Ok to check in this one?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
+ error (Unrecognized option %s
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
I have done some SPEC testing evaluating the performance impact of
your patch. They look very positive. LIPO got helped even more
Ok to check in this one?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
+ error (Unrecognized option %s, is_enable ? -fenable :
-fdisable);
+ error (Unknown pass %s specified in %s,
+
:
Size
Before: 1,175,509
After: 1,568,135
Change: +33.4%
Time
Before: 5.3s
After: 12.9s
Change: +143%
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:26
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
-fdisable-tree-ccp1 --- disable ccp1 for all functions
-fenable-tree-cunroll=1 --- enable complete unroll for the function
whose cgraphnode uid is 1
%
179.art29792884 -3.18%
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Mark Heffernan meh...@google.com wrote:
Verified identical binaries created and submitted.
Mark
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
Ok
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
davi...@google.com (David Li) writes:
-fdisable-tree-ccp1 --- disable ccp1
To make consistent inline decisions between profile-gen and
profile-use, probably better to check these two:
flag_profile_arcs and flag_branch_probabilities. -fprofile-use
enables profile-arcs, and value profiling is enabled only when
edge/branch profiling is enabled (so no need to be checked).
, Mark Heffernan meh...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
To make consistent inline decisions between profile-gen and
profile-use, probably better to check these two:
flag_profile_arcs and flag_branch_probabilities. -fprofile-use
Ok with that change to google/main with some retesting.
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Mark Heffernan meh...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
The new change won't help those. Your original place will be ok if you
test
Thanks for the comment. Will fix those.
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, David Li wrote:
+ error (Unrecognized option %s, is_enable ? -fenable :
-fdisable);
+ error (Unknown pass %s specified in %s,
+
Will fix the Changelog, and add documentation.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:37 PM, David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
In gcc, not all passes have user level control to turn it on/off, and
there
You will have a followup patch to override arm defaults, right? Ok for
google/main.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Mark Heffernan meh...@google.com wrote:
This tiny change improves the size estimation for inlining and results in an
average 1% size reduction and a small (maybe
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org wrote:
On 05/13/2011 03:03 AM, Rong Xu wrote:
* gcc/coverage.c (revision 173717): set a flag if building
for Linux kernel.
* gcc/tree-profile.c (revision 173717): don't emit TLS
declarations for Linux
The following patch temporarily disable some of the checking which is
not fully 'lipo' aware. It will be checked into google/main and
further cleanups will follow.
David
2011-05-10 David Li davi...@google.com
* cgraphunit.c (revision 173635) (verify_cgraph_node):
Ok.
The instrumentation and optimization runtime has not been open sourced
yet -- will need to be done later at some point.
(For reference, see Silvius's CGO2011 paper).
Thanks,
David
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Easwaran Raman era...@google.com wrote:
This patch by Silvius Rus replaces
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
I want propose a more general solution.
1) Generic Annotation Support for gcc IR -- it is used attach to
application/optimization
801 - 900 of 970 matches
Mail list logo
