On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:54 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > with the latest patch (this is with -m32) where -mstv causes
> > > all spills to go away and the cmoves replaced (so clearly
> > > better code after the patch) for pr65105-5.c, no obvious
> > > improvements for pr65105-3.c where cmov does
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:08 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > On 8/9/19 7:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > It fixes the slowdown observed in 416.gamess and 464.h264ref.
> > >
> > > Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing still in progress.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 8/9/19 7:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > It fixes the slowdown observed in 416.gamess and 464.h264ref.
> >
> > Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing still in progress.
> >
> > CCing Jeff who "knows RTL".
> What specifically do you want
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:20 AM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 8/12/19 6:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
>
On 8/12/19 6:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>>
(define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
"TARGET_AVX512F"])
and then we need to
On 8/9/19 7:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:27 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"]
> > > > > > > > > > > > [DI "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > >
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"]
> > > > > > > > > > > [DI "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and then we need to split
On 7/27/19 3:22 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:03 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>>> Clearly this approach will run into register allocation issues
>>> but it looks cleaner than writing yet another STV-like pass
>>> (STV itself is quite awkwardly structured so I refrain from
>>>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and then we need to split DImode for 32bits, too.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > > >
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:25:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > 0.65 │1e0: vpxor %xmm0,%xmm0,%xmm0
> > 0.32 │ vpmaxs -0x10(%rsp),%xmm0,%xmm0
> > 40.45 │ vmovd %xmm0,%eax
> > 2.45 │ imul %r8d,%eax
>
> Shouldn't we hoist
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:25:30AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> 0.65 │1e0: vpxor %xmm0,%xmm0,%xmm0
> 0.32 │ vpmaxs -0x10(%rsp),%xmm0,%xmm0
> 40.45 │ vmovd %xmm0,%eax
> 2.45 │ imul %r8d,%eax
Shouldn't we hoist the vpxor before the loop? Is it STV being done too
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and then we need to split DImode for 32bits, too.
> > > > > >
> >
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and then we need to split DImode for 32bits, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, please add "TARGET_64BIT &&
On 8/5/19 6:32 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:52 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:20 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:51 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:20 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:51 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 5,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:20 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:51 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > >
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:51 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
>
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:51 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and then we need to split DImode for 32bits, too.
> > >
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and then we need to split DImode for 32bits, too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For now, please add "TARGET_64BIT
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:04 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:51:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > > >
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:04 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:51:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:51:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > > >
> > > > and then we need to
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:54 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:51:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> > >
> > > and then we need to split DImode for 32bits, too.
> >
> > For now, please
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 02:51:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > (define_mode_iterator MAXMIN_IMODE [SI "TARGET_SSE4_1"] [DI
> > "TARGET_AVX512F"])
> >
> > and then we need to split DImode for 32bits, too.
>
> For now, please add "TARGET_64BIT && TARGET_AVX512F" for DImode
> condition, I'll
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:43 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:16 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > > dimode_{scalar_to_vector_candidate_p,remove_non_convertible_regs}
> > > functions to drop the dimode_ prefix - is that OK or do you
> > > prefer some other prefix?
> >
> > No, please just drop
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > dimode_{scalar_to_vector_candidate_p,remove_non_convertible_regs}
> > functions to drop the dimode_ prefix - is that OK or do you
> > prefer some other prefix?
>
> No, please just drop the prefix.
just noticed this applies to the derived
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > So you unconditionally add a smaxdi3 pattern - indeed this looks
> >
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:12 PM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Uros Bizjak writes:
>> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:13 AM Richard Sandiford
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Uros Bizjak writes:
>> >> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu,
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:12 PM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Uros Bizjak writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:13 AM Richard Sandiford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Uros Bizjak writes:
> >> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:13 AM Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>>
>> Uros Bizjak writes:
>> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener
>> >> > wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:13 AM Richard Sandiford
wrote:
>
> Uros Bizjak writes:
> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >
> >> So you unconditionally
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> So you unconditionally add a smaxdi3 pattern - indeed this looks
>> necessary even when going
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 7:23 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 07:11:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > Yes, the approach looks OK to me. It makes chain building mode
> > > agnostic, and the chain building can be used for
> > > a)
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 7:23 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 07:11:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Yes, the approach looks OK to me. It makes chain building mode
> > agnostic, and the chain building can be used for
> > a) DImode x86_32 (as is now), but maybe 64bit minmax
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 07:11:01PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Yes, the approach looks OK to me. It makes chain building mode
> agnostic, and the chain building can be used for
> a) DImode x86_32 (as is now), but maybe 64bit minmax operation can be added.
> b) SImode x86_32 and x86_64 (this will
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> So you unconditionally add a smaxdi3 pattern - indeed this looks
> necessary even when going the STV route. The actual
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener wrote:
So you unconditionally add a smaxdi3 pattern - indeed this looks
necessary even when going the STV route. The actual regression
for the testcase could also be solved by turing the smaxsi3
back into
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener wrote:
> > > So you unconditionally add a smaxdi3 pattern - indeed this looks
> > > necessary even when going the STV route. The actual regression
> > > for the testcase could also be solved by turing the smaxsi3
> > > back into a compare and jump
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:21 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How would one write smaxsi3 as a splitter to be split after
> > > > >
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:21 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > > > How would one write smaxsi3 as a splitter to be split after
> > > > reload in the case LRA assigned the GPR alternative? Is it
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> > > How would one write smaxsi3 as a splitter to be split after
> > > reload in the case LRA assigned the GPR alternative? Is it
> > > even worth doing? Even the SSE reg alternative can be split
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > How would one write smaxsi3 as a splitter to be split after
> > reload in the case LRA assigned the GPR alternative? Is it
> > even worth doing? Even the SSE reg alternative can be split
> > to remove the not needed CC clobber.
> >
> >
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:21 PM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > The following fixes the runtime regression of 456.hmmer caused
> > > by matching ICC in code generation and using cmov more
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 5:03 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > Clearly this approach will run into register allocation issues
> > but it looks cleaner than writing yet another STV-like pass
> > (STV itself is quite awkwardly structured so I refrain from
> > touching it...).
> >
> > Anyway - comments? It
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jul 23 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The following fixes the runtime regression of 456.hmmer caused
> > by matching ICC in code generation and using cmov more aggressively
> > (through GIMPLE level MAX_EXPR usage). Appearantly
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 23 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following fixes the runtime regression of 456.hmmer caused
> by matching ICC in code generation and using cmov more aggressively
> (through GIMPLE level MAX_EXPR usage). Appearantly (discovered
> by manual assembler editing) using the SSE
On 7/23/19 8:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following fixes the runtime regression of 456.hmmer caused
> by matching ICC in code generation and using cmov more aggressively
> (through GIMPLE level MAX_EXPR usage). Appearantly (discovered
> by manual assembler editing) using the SSE unit
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >
> > The following fixes the runtime regression of 456.hmmer caused
> > by matching ICC in code generation and using cmov more aggressively
> > (through GIMPLE level MAX_EXPR usage). Appearantly
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The following fixes the runtime regression of 456.hmmer caused
> by matching ICC in code generation and using cmov more aggressively
> (through GIMPLE level MAX_EXPR usage). Appearantly (discovered
> by manual assembler editing) using the SSE unit
The following fixes the runtime regression of 456.hmmer caused
by matching ICC in code generation and using cmov more aggressively
(through GIMPLE level MAX_EXPR usage). Appearantly (discovered
by manual assembler editing) using the SSE unit for performing
SImode loads, adds and then two singed
61 matches
Mail list logo
