On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 08:48:33AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:53:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > BB reorder switches back and forth as well ... :/
> >
> > Yes. It is extremely hard to change any jumps in
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:53:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:12:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:53:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:12:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > Basic block partitioning has wildly disproportionate
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:07:27AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 02:58:47PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> > > > 11.02.2020 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > Sound
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:12:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Basic block partitioning has wildly disproportionate fallout in all
> > > later passes, both in terms of what those *do* (or
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:12:58AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Basic block partitioning has wildly disproportionate fallout in all
> > later passes, both in terms of what those *do* (or don't, if partitioning
> > is enabled), and of impact on
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:46:05PM +0300, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> > Hmm, even when trying to move it just few passes earlier many years ago,
> > got another opinion:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01526.html
> > Although
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 02:58:47PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> > > 11.02.2020 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Sound good, but IMHO modulo scheduler is not the best choice to be the
> > > first
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:46:05PM +0300, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> Hmm, even when trying to move it just few passes earlier many years ago,
> got another opinion:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01526.html
> Although without such a move we still have annoying issues which RTL
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 02:58:47PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> > 11.02.2020 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Sound good, but IMHO modulo scheduler is not the best choice to be the
> > first step implementing such a concept.
>
> True ;) But since
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Roman Zhuykov wrote:
> 11.02.2020 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Yes, we should decide how
11.02.2020 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Yes, we should decide how often we want to unroll things somewhere before
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Yes, we should decide how often we want to unroll things somewhere before
> > > ivopts already, and just use that info here.
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 08:34:15AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Yes, we should decide how often we want to unroll things somewhere before
> > ivopts already, and just use that info here.
> >
> > Or are there advantage to doing it *in* ivopts?
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:17:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > on 2020/1/20 下午8:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > >> As we discussed in the thread
> > >>
on 2020/2/11 上午5:29, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:17:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> on 2020/1/20 下午8:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
As we discussed in the thread
Hi!
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:17:04PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> on 2020/1/20 下午8:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >> As we discussed in the thread
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00196.html
> >> Original:
Hi Segher,
on 2020/1/20 下午8:33, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> As we discussed in the thread
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00196.html
>> Original: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00104.html,
>>
Hi!
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:36:52PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> As we discussed in the thread
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00196.html
> Original: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00104.html,
> I'm working to teach IVOPTs to consider D-form group access during
Hi,
As we discussed in the thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00196.html
Original: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00104.html,
I'm working to teach IVOPTs to consider D-form group access during unrolling.
The difference on D-form and other forms during unrolling is
20 matches
Mail list logo
