Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

ping * 3 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html Thanks, Prathamesh On 5 July 2016 at 10:53, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > ping * 2 ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html > > Thanks, > Prathamesh > > On 28 June 2016 at

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

ping * 2 ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html Thanks, Prathamesh On 28 June 2016 at 14:49, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html > > Thanks, > Prathamesh > > On 23 June 2016 at 22:51,

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01703.html Thanks, Prathamesh On 23 June 2016 at 22:51, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 19:52, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> On 14 June 2016 at 18:31, Prathamesh

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 17 June 2016 at 19:52, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 14 June 2016 at 18:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >> On 13 June 2016 at 16:13, Jan Hubicka wrote: diff --git a/gcc/cgraph.h b/gcc/cgraph.h index

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 14 June 2016 at 18:31, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 13 June 2016 at 16:13, Jan Hubicka wrote: >>> diff --git a/gcc/cgraph.h b/gcc/cgraph.h >>> index ecafe63..41ac408 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/cgraph.h >>> +++ b/gcc/cgraph.h >>> @@ -1874,6 +1874,9

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 13 June 2016 at 16:13, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> diff --git a/gcc/cgraph.h b/gcc/cgraph.h >> index ecafe63..41ac408 100644 >> --- a/gcc/cgraph.h >> +++ b/gcc/cgraph.h >> @@ -1874,6 +1874,9 @@ public: >> if we did not do any inter-procedural code movement. */ >>unsigned

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

> diff --git a/gcc/cgraph.h b/gcc/cgraph.h > index ecafe63..41ac408 100644 > --- a/gcc/cgraph.h > +++ b/gcc/cgraph.h > @@ -1874,6 +1874,9 @@ public: > if we did not do any inter-procedural code movement. */ >unsigned used_by_single_function : 1; > > + /* Set if -fsection-anchors is

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 10 June 2016 at 16:47, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 10 June 2016 at 01:53, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> >> I think it would be nice to work

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 10 June 2016 at 01:53, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> >> I think it would be nice to work towards transitioning > >> >> flag_section_anchors to a flag on varpool nodes,

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 10 June 2016 at 01:53, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> >> I think it would be nice to work towards transitioning >> >> flag_section_anchors to a flag on varpool nodes, thereby removing >> >> the Optimization flag from

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> I think it would be nice to work towards transitioning >> flag_section_anchors to a flag on varpool nodes, thereby removing >> the Optimization flag from common.opt:fsection-anchors >> >> That would simplify the walk over varpool

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

> On 8 June 2016 at 20:38, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> I think it would be nice to work towards transitioning > >> flag_section_anchors to a flag on varpool nodes, thereby removing > >> the Optimization flag from common.opt:fsection-anchors > >> > >> That would simplify the walk over

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

> I think it would be nice to work towards transitioning > flag_section_anchors to a flag on varpool nodes, thereby removing > the Optimization flag from common.opt:fsection-anchors > > That would simplify the walk over varpool candidates. Makes sense to me, too. There are more candidates for

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 3 June 2016 at 13:35, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> > fsection-anchors > >> > Common Report Var(flag_section_anchors) > >> > Access data in the same section from shared anchor points. > >> > >> Funny. I see the following on trunk: >

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

> > fsection-anchors > > > > Common Report Var(flag_section_anchors) > > > > Access data in the same section from shared anchor points. > > > > Funny. I see the

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > > > Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > >> "This would mean the pass should get its own non-Optimization flag > > > >> initialized by targets where section anchors are usually used" > > > >> IIUC

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > > Richard Biener wrote: > > > > >> "This would mean the pass should get its own non-Optimization flag > > >> initialized by targets where section anchors are usually used" > > >> IIUC should we add a new option -fno-increase_alignment and

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, David Edelsohn wrote: > > Richard Biener wrote: > > >> "This would mean the pass should get its own non-Optimization flag > >> initialized by targets where section anchors are usually used" > >> IIUC should we add a new option -fno-increase_alignment and gate the > >>

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

> Richard Biener wrote: >> "This would mean the pass should get its own non-Optimization flag >> initialized by targets where section anchors are usually used" >> IIUC should we add a new option -fno-increase_alignment and gate the >> pass on it ? Um sorry I didn't understand why targets >>

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 2 June 2016 at 14:44, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 2 June 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> >>> On 1 June 2016 at 18:37, Richard Biener wrote: >>> > On Wed, 1 Jun

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 2 June 2016 at 13:23, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 1 June 2016 at 18:37, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> This patch tries to move

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 1 June 2016 at 18:37, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> Hi Richard, > >> This patch tries to move increase_alignment pass from small to regular ipa > >> pass. > >> Does the

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On 1 June 2016 at 18:37, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> This patch tries to move increase_alignment pass from small to regular ipa >> pass. >> Does the patch look correct ? >> Since we are only increasing alignment of

Re: move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > Hi Richard, > This patch tries to move increase_alignment pass from small to regular ipa > pass. > Does the patch look correct ? > Since we are only increasing alignment of varpool nodes, I am not sure > if any ipa > read/write hooks were

move increase_alignment from simple to regular ipa pass

Hi Richard, This patch tries to move increase_alignment pass from small to regular ipa pass. Does the patch look correct ? Since we are only increasing alignment of varpool nodes, I am not sure if any ipa read/write hooks were necessary and passed NULL for them. Cross-tested on arm*-*-*,