On 02/12/15 05:40, Alex Velenko wrote:
On 09/02/15 23:32, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/03/15 20:03, Bin.Cheng wrote:
I looked into the test and can confirm the previous compilation is
correct.
The cover letter of this patch said IRA mis-handled REQ_EQUIV before,
but in this case it is REG_EQUAL that
On 09/02/15 23:32, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/03/15 20:03, Bin.Cheng wrote:
I looked into the test and can confirm the previous compilation is correct.
The cover letter of this patch said IRA mis-handled REQ_EQUIV before,
but in this case it is REG_EQUAL that is lost. The full dump (without
this
-Original Message-
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Law
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:03 AM
To: Bin.Cheng
Cc: Alex Velenko; Felix Yang; Yangfei (Felix); Marcus Shawcroft; GCC Patches;
vmaka...@redhat.com
Subject: Re:
On 02/10/15 03:51, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
R110 can have the value -1 (BB6, BB7, BB8) or 0 (BB5). Thus there is no single
value across the entire function that one can validly use for r110.
Does the value of R110 should not change across all the callee path from the
given caller
On 02/03/15 20:03, Bin.Cheng wrote:
I looked into the test and can confirm the previous compilation is correct.
The cover letter of this patch said IRA mis-handled REQ_EQUIV before,
but in this case it is REG_EQUAL that is lost. The full dump (without
this patch) after IRA is like:
Right, but a
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/03/15 01:29, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Hmm, if I understand correctly, it's a code size regression, so I
don't think it's appropriate to adapt the test case. Either the patch
or something else in GCC is doing wrong, right?
Hi
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/02/15 08:59, Alex Velenko wrote:
On 11/10/14 13:44, Felix Yang wrote:
Hello Jeff,
I see that you have improved the RTL typesafety issue for ira.c,
so I rebased this patch
on the latest trunk and change to use
On 02/03/15 01:29, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Hmm, if I understand correctly, it's a code size regression, so I
don't think it's appropriate to adapt the test case. Either the patch
or something else in GCC is doing wrong, right?
Hi Alex, could you please file a PR with full dump information for
On 03/02/15 08:29, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/02/15 08:59, Alex Velenko wrote:
On 11/10/14 13:44, Felix Yang wrote:
Hello Jeff,
I see that you have improved the RTL typesafety issue for ira.c,
so I rebased this patch
On 02/02/15 08:59, Alex Velenko wrote:
On 11/10/14 13:44, Felix Yang wrote:
Hello Jeff,
I see that you have improved the RTL typesafety issue for ira.c,
so I rebased this patch
on the latest trunk and change to use the new list walking
interface.
Bootstrapped on
On 11/10/14 13:44, Felix Yang wrote:
Hello Jeff,
I see that you have improved the RTL typesafety issue for ira.c,
so I rebased this patch
on the latest trunk and change to use the new list walking interface.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-SUSE-Linux and make check regression tested.
On 10/11/14 06:44, Felix Yang wrote:
Hello Jeff,
I see that you have improved the RTL typesafety issue for ira.c,
so I rebased this patch
on the latest trunk and change to use the new list walking interface.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-SUSE-Linux and make check regression tested.
Hello Jeff,
I see that you have improved the RTL typesafety issue for ira.c,
so I rebased this patch
on the latest trunk and change to use the new list walking interface.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-SUSE-Linux and make check regression tested.
OK for trunk?
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
On 09/27/14 08:48, Felix Yang wrote:
Thanks for the explaination.
I have changed the loop_depth into a short interger hoping that we can
save some memory :-)
Thanks.
Attached please find the updated patch. Bootstrapped and reg-tested on
x86_64-suse-linux.
Please do a final revew once the
Thanks for the explaination.
I have changed the loop_depth into a short interger hoping that we can
save some memory :-)
Attached please find the updated patch. Bootstrapped and reg-tested on
x86_64-suse-linux.
Please do a final revew once the assignment is ready.
As for the new list walking
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the suggestions. I updated the patch accordingly.
1. Both my employer(Huawei) and I have signed the copyright
assignments with FSF.
These assignments are already sent via post two days ago and
hopefully should reach FSF in one week.
Maybe it's OK to
On 09/26/14 07:57, Felix Yang wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the suggestions. I updated the patch accordingly.
1. Both my employer(Huawei) and I have signed the copyright
assignments with FSF.
These assignments are already sent via post two days ago and
hopefully should reach
On 09/24/14 06:07, Felix Yang wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the comments. I updated the patch adding some enhancements.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-suse-linux. Please apply this patch if OK for trunk.
Three points:
1. For multiple-set register, it is not qualified to have a equiv
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the comments. I updated the patch adding some enhancements.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-suse-linux. Please apply this patch if OK for trunk.
Three points:
1. For multiple-set register, it is not qualified to have a equiv
note once it is marked by no_equiv. The
PING ?
Cheers,
Felix
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Felix Yang fei.yang0...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the comments. I updated the patch adding some enhancements.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-suse-linux. Please apply this patch if OK for
trunk.
Three points:
1. For
Hi,
Attached please fined the updated patch.
Cheers,
Felix
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Yangfei (Felix) felix.y...@huawei.com wrote:
On 09/22/14 08:40, Felix Yang wrote:
Hi,
I find that update_equiv_regs in ira.c sets the wrong EQUIV
reg-note for pseudo with more than one
Hi,
Ignore the previous message.
Attached please find the updated patch.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-suse-linux. Please apply this patch if OK for trunk.
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/ChangeLog(revision 215500)
+++
On 09/23/14 04:51, Felix Yang wrote:
Hi,
Ignore the previous message.
Attached please find the updated patch.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-suse-linux. Please apply this patch if OK for trunk.
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
===
---
On 09/22/14 08:40, Felix Yang wrote:
Hi,
I find that update_equiv_regs in ira.c sets the wrong EQUIV
reg-note for pseudo with more than one definiton in certain situation.
Here is a simplified RTL snippet after this function finishs handling:
(insn 77 37 78 2 (set (reg:SI 171)
On 09/22/14 08:40, Felix Yang wrote:
Hi,
I find that update_equiv_regs in ira.c sets the wrong EQUIV
reg-note for pseudo with more than one definiton in certain situation.
Here is a simplified RTL snippet after this function finishs handling:
(insn 77 37 78 2 (set
25 matches
Mail list logo
