Richard Biener writes:
> @@ -787,14 +821,14 @@ canonicalize_base_object_address (tree a
>
> bool
> dr_analyze_innermost (innermost_loop_behavior *drb, tree ref,
> - struct loop *loop)
> + gimple *stmt, struct loop *loop)
> {
>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Bin.Cheng
Richard Biener writes:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>>
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "Bin.Cheng"
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
On Wed, Aug
"Bin.Cheng" writes:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
"Bin.Cheng"
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
On Wed, Aug 16,
"Bin.Cheng" writes:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
The first
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Bin.Cheng" writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes
"Bin.Cheng" writes:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes to
>> dr_analyze_innermost. Previously we would treat "i" as an iv even
>> for bb analysis
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes to
> dr_analyze_innermost. Previously we would treat "i" as an iv even
> for bb analysis and end up with:
>
>DR_BASE_ADDRESS: p or q
>
Richard Sandiford writes:
> The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes to
> dr_analyze_innermost. Previously we would treat "i" as an iv even
> for bb analysis and end up with:
>
>DR_BASE_ADDRESS: p or q
>DR_OFFSET: 0
>DR_INIT: 0 or
The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes to
dr_analyze_innermost. Previously we would treat "i" as an iv even
for bb analysis and end up with:
DR_BASE_ADDRESS: p or q
DR_OFFSET: 0
DR_INIT: 0 or 4
DR_STEP: 16
We now always keep the step as 0 instead, so for an
14 matches
Mail list logo