Hi!
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jiufu
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jiufu Guo writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi!
> >> >>
> >> >> >
Hi!
Richard Biener writes:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jiufu Guo writes:
>> >>
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Sehger,
>> >> >
>> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Jiufu Guo writes:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> > Hi Sehger,
> >> >
> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo
Hi!
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Jiufu Guo writes:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Hi Sehger,
>> >
>> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >>> > No. insn_cost is
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Jiufu Guo writes:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Hi Sehger,
> >
> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >>> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
Jiufu Guo writes:
Hi!
> Hi Sehger,
>
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
>>> > made-up nonsense. I created insn_cost precisely to
Hi Sehger,
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
>> > made-up nonsense. I created insn_cost precisely to get away from that
>> > aspect of
Hi,
Jeff Law writes:
> On 3/1/2022 12:47 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>>
>>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>>
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> And another
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:28:57PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > No. insn_cost is only for correct, existing instructions, not for
> > made-up nonsense. I created insn_cost precisely to get away from that
> > aspect of rtx_cost (and some other issues, like, it is
On 3/1/2022 12:47 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Segher Boessenkool writes:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
Segher Boessenkool writes:
Hi!
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:48:54PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> > That is the problem yes. You need insns to call insn_cost on. You can
>> > look in combine.c:combine_validate_cost to see how this can be done; but
>> > you
Richard Biener writes:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
>> >> > much work.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
> >> > much work. It may be ok to separate the
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
>> > much work. It may be ok to separate the constant handling
>> > logic from CSE.
>>
>> Not
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:50:28AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> > And another thing as Segher pointed out, CSE is doing too
> > much work. It may be ok to separate the constant handling
> > logic from CSE.
>
> Not sure - CSE just is value numbering, I
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:48:54PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
> > That is the problem yes. You need insns to call insn_cost on. You can
> > look in combine.c:combine_validate_cost to see how this can be done; but
> > you need to have some code to generate in the
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Richard Biener writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>> >> >>
>> >>
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Biener writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> >>
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Richard Biener writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> >>
> >> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >>> I'm assuming
Richard Biener writes:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>
>> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>>
>> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>> >>>
>> >>> (set (reg:MODE ..)
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
>
> > Segher Boessenkool writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
> >>>
> >>> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
> >>>
> >>> here and CSE is not
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:32:55PM +0800, guojiufu wrote:
>> >We already have TARGET_INSN_COST which you could ask for a cost.
>> >Like if we'd have a single_set then just temporarily substitute
>> >the RHS with the candidate and cost the insns and compare against
>>
Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches writes:
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>>>
>>> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
>>>
>>> here and CSE is not substituting into random places of an
>>> instruction(?).
Segher Boessenkool writes:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>>
>> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
>>
>> here and CSE is not substituting into random places of an
>> instruction(?). I don't know what 'rtx_cost' should evaluate
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 07:32:55PM +0800, guojiufu wrote:
> >We already have TARGET_INSN_COST which you could ask for a cost.
> >Like if we'd have a single_set then just temporarily substitute
> >the RHS with the candidate and cost the insns and compare against
> >the original insn cost. So why
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:02:59PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I'm assuming we're always dealing with
>
> (set (reg:MODE ..) )
>
> here and CSE is not substituting into random places of an
> instruction(?). I don't know what 'rtx_cost' should evaluate
> to for a constant, if it should
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, guojiufu wrote:
>
>
> On 2/22/22 PM3:26, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
> >> to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
>
On 2/22/22 PM3:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
Hi,
For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
mem. There are still some places that could be improved for
On 2022-02-23 01:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Jiu Fu,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 02:53:13PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
static bool
rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem (machine_mode mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
rtx x)
{
- if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH
- && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == UNSPEC)
+ if
Hi Jiu Fu,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 02:53:13PM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> static bool
> rs6000_cannot_force_const_mem (machine_mode mode ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, rtx x)
> {
> - if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH
> - && GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == UNSPEC)
> + if (GET_CODE (x) == HIGH)
> return true;
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, Jiufu Guo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
> to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
> mem. There are still some places that could be improved for platforms.
>
> This patch could handle
Hi,
For constants, there are some codes to check: if it is able to put
to instruction as an immediate operand or it is profitable to load from
mem. There are still some places that could be improved for platforms.
This patch could handle PR63281/57836. This patch does not change
too much on
34 matches
Mail list logo
