on 2023/11/23 16:20, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:02 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>
>> on 2023/11/22 18:25, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:31 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
on 2023/11/17 20:55, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:02 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> on 2023/11/22 18:25, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:31 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >>
> >> on 2023/11/17 20:55, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > I don't think you can run
on 2023/11/22 18:25, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:31 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>
>> on 2023/11/17 20:55, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> I don't think you can run cleanup_cfg after sched_init. I would suggest
> to put it early in
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:31 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> on 2023/11/17 20:55, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >>> I don't think you can run cleanup_cfg after sched_init. I would suggest
> >>> to put it early in schedule_insns.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the
on 2023/11/17 20:55, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> I don't think you can run cleanup_cfg after sched_init. I would suggest
>>> to put it early in schedule_insns.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion, I placed it at the beginning of haifa_sched_init
>> instead,
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > I don't think you can run cleanup_cfg after sched_init. I would suggest
> > to put it early in schedule_insns.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, I placed it at the beginning of haifa_sched_init
> instead, since schedule_insns invokes haifa_sched_init,
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:04 AM Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
> on 2023/11/15 17:43, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >
> And I suppose it would be OK to do that. Empty BBs are usually removed
> by
> CFG cleanup so the situation should only happen in
on 2023/11/15 17:43, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>
And I suppose it would be OK to do that. Empty BBs are usually removed by
CFG cleanup so the situation should only happen in rare corner cases where
the fix would be to actually run CFG
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >> And I suppose it would be OK to do that. Empty BBs are usually removed by
> >> CFG cleanup so the situation should only happen in rare corner cases where
> >> the fix would be to actually run CFG cleanup ...
> >
> > Yeah, sel-sched invokes
Hi Alexander/Richard/Jeff,
Thanks for the insightful comments!
on 2023/11/10 22:41, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 3:18 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
> I'm afraid
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 3:18 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm afraid ignoring debug-only BBs goes contrary to overall
> > > > var-tracking design:
> > > > DEBUG_INSNs participate in
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 3:18 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > I'm afraid ignoring debug-only BBs goes contrary to overall var-tracking
> > > design:
> > > DEBUG_INSNs participate in dependency graph so that schedulers can remove
> > > or
> > >
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I'm afraid ignoring debug-only BBs goes contrary to overall var-tracking
> > design:
> > DEBUG_INSNs participate in dependency graph so that schedulers can remove or
> > mutate them as needed when moving real insns across them.
>
> Note that
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:25 PM Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, I noticed that the scheduler takes care of DEBUG_INSNs as normal
> > > operations. When I started to work on this issue, initially I wanted to
> > > try
> > > something similar to
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Yeah, I noticed that the scheduler takes care of DEBUG_INSNs as normal
> > operations. When I started to work on this issue, initially I wanted to try
> > something similar to your idea #2, but when checking the APIs, I realized
> > why not just skip the
On 11/9/23 18:57, Kewen.Lin wrote:
Hi Maxim and Alexander,
Thanks a lot for the review comments!
on 2023/11/10 01:40, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
Hi Kewen,
Below are my comments. I don't want to override Alexander's review, and if
the patch looks
On 11/9/23 10:40, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
Hi Kewen,
Below are my comments. I don't want to override Alexander's review, and if
the patch looks good to him, it's fine to ignore my concerns.
My main concern is that this adds a new entity --
Hi Maxim and Alexander,
Thanks a lot for the review comments!
on 2023/11/10 01:40, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
>> Hi Kewen,
>>
>> Below are my comments. I don't want to override Alexander's review, and if
>> the patch looks good to him, it's fine
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Hi Kewen,
>
> Below are my comments. I don't want to override Alexander's review, and if
> the patch looks good to him, it's fine to ignore my concerns.
>
> My main concern is that this adds a new entity -- forceful skipping of
> DEBUG_INSN-only
Hi Kewen,
Below are my comments. I don't want to override Alexander's review, and if the
patch looks good to him, it's fine to ignore my concerns.
My main concern is that this adds a new entity -- forceful skipping of
DEBUG_INSN-only basic blocks -- to the scheduler for a somewhat minor
"Kewen.Lin" writes:
> Hi,
>
> Gentle ping this:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/634201.html
Sorry for the lack of review on this. Personally, I've never looked
at this part of code base in detail, so I don't think I can do a proper
review. I'll try to have a look in
Hi,
Gentle ping this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-October/634201.html
BR,
Kewen
on 2023/10/25 10:45, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is almost a repost for v2 which was posted at[1] in March
> excepting for:
> 1) rebased from r14-4810 which is relatively up-to-date,
>
Hi,
This is almost a repost for v2 which was posted at[1] in March
excepting for:
1) rebased from r14-4810 which is relatively up-to-date,
some conflicts on "int to bool" return type change have
been resolved;
2) adjust commit log a bit;
3) fix misspelled "articial" with
23 matches
Mail list logo
