Hi,
On 19 August 2016 at 21:41, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, kugan
> <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 12/08/16 20:43, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On W
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00872.html
Thanks,
Kugan
On 11 August 2016 at 09:09, kugan <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Je
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00987.html
Thanks,
Kugan
On 12 August 2016 at 13:19, kugan <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
> On 11/08/16 20:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:11 AM,
On 19 August 2016 at 12:09, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
> The testcase pr33738.C for warning fails with early-vrp patch. The
> reason is, with early-vrp ccp2 is folding the comparison that used to
> be folded in simplify_stmt_for_jump_threadi
-ssa-ccp.c. We might also run
into some other similar issues in the future.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no new regressions.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-08-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* tree-ssa
Hi Richard,
On 17/08/16 08:20, kugan wrote:
Hi,
On 16/08/16 21:56, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:09 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 23/07/16 20:12, kugan wrote:
Hi Richard,
As we had value_range_type in tree-ssanames.h why not put value
Hi,
On 16/08/16 20:58, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:39 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi,
as said the refactoring that would be appreciated is to split out the
update_value_range calls
from the worker functions so you can call the respective fun
Hi,
On 16/08/16 21:56, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:09 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 23/07/16 20:12, kugan wrote:
Hi Richard,
As we had value_range_type in tree-ssanames.h why not put value_range
there?
For IPA_VRP, we now need value
On 23/07/16 20:12, kugan wrote:
Hi Richard,
As we had value_range_type in tree-ssanames.h why not put value_range there?
For IPA_VRP, we now need value_range used in ipa-prop.h (in ipa-vrp
patch). Based on this, attached patch now adds struct value_range to
tree-ssanames.h and fixes
Hi Richard,
On 12/08/16 20:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:17 AM, kugan <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
index 8a292ed..7028cd4 100644
--- a/gcc/common.opt
+++ b/gcc/common.opt
@@ -2482,6 +2482,10 @@ ftr
is a patch that just splits out the update_value_range calls
visit_stmts. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux with no
new regressions.
I also verified few random fdump-tree-vrp1-details from stage2 to make
sure they are same.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog
Hi Richard,
On 11/08/16 20:04, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:11 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
[SNIP]
+two_valued_val_range_p (tree var, tree *a, tree *b)
+{
+ value_range *vr = get_value_range (var);
+ if ((vr->type != VR_RANGE
+
Hi Richard,
On 09/08/16 20:22, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 29 April 2016 at 20:47, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1
Hi,
On 10/08/16 20:28, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being in the ops
list for passing changed to rewrite_exp
On 10/08/16 18:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:51:32AM +1000, kugan wrote:
I see it now. The problem is we are just looking at (-1) being in the ops
list for passing changed to rewrite_expr_tree in the case of multiplication
by negate. If we have combined (-1
On 10/08/16 08:51, kugan wrote:
Hi Jakub,
On 10/08/16 07:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:51:08AM +1000, kugan wrote:
On 10/08/16 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
There was no new regression while testing. I also moved
Hi Jakub,
On 10/08/16 07:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:51:08AM +1000, kugan wrote:
On 10/08/16 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
There was no new regression while testing. I also moved the testcase from
gcc.dg/torture
Hi Andrew,
On 10/08/16 07:50, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:42 PM, kugan <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 09/08/16 23:43, kugan wrote:
Hi,
The test-case in PR72835 is failing with -O2 and passing with
-fno-tree-reassoc. It also passes with -O2 -fno-tr
Hi Jakub,
On 10/08/16 07:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:42:25AM +1000, kugan wrote:
There was no new regression while testing. I also moved the testcase from
gcc.dg/torture/pr72835.c to gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr72835.c. Is this OK for trunk?
This looks strange. The tree-ssa
On 09/08/16 23:43, kugan wrote:
Hi,
The test-case in PR72835 is failing with -O2 and passing with
-fno-tree-reassoc. It also passes with -O2 -fno-tree-vrp.
diff of .115t.dse2 and .116t.reassoc1 for the c++ testcase is as
follows, which looks OK.
+ unsigned int _16;
+ unsigned int _17
resets it. With this, the
testcases in TH PR is now working.
Bootstrap and regression testing for x86_64-linux-gnu is in progress. Is
this OK for trunk if there is no regression.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-08-09 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
P
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 29 April 2016 at 20:47, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 1:14 AM, kugan
> <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> As explained in PR61839,
>>
>> Following difference result
Hi Jakub,
Thanks for the review.
On 08/08/16 16:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 01:36:51PM +1000, kugan wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssanames.h b/gcc/tree-ssanames.h
index c81b1a1..6e34433 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssanames.h
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssanames.h
@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ struct GTY
be used in IPA-VRP such that redundant
check for NULL can be eliminated.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. Is this OK for
trunk.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-08-08 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* tree-ssanames.c (set_ptr_nonnull
uot;loop with 4
iterations completely unrolled" 2
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr61743-1.c scan-tree-dump-times cunroll "loop with 8
iterations completely unrolled" 2
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-7.c scan-tree-dump thread3 "Jumps
threaded: 3"
## Differences found:
# 1 differences in 1
-bitwise-cp patch ?
Bootstrap+test in progress on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK for trunk ?
I think I approved a better patch from Kugan.
Sorry, I was waiting for the other patches to get approved. Since this
is needed for Prathamesh too, I will commit after testing this patch alone.
Thanks.
Kugan
at this point), some of
the ranges can be pessimistic and can impact the estimation. Let me have
a look at this.
Thanks,
Kugan
fixed in
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/648662/. I will commit that soon.
Thanks,
Kugan
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 04/08/16 17:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:12 AM, kugan <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi,
During IPA-VRP implementation, I realized that we don't support streaming
wide_int in LTO. Attached patch does this.
Hi,
During IPA-VRP implementation, I realized that we don't support
streaming wide_int in LTO. Attached patch does this. Tested with
IPA-VRP. Is this OK for trunk if bootstrap and regression testing is fine.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-08-04 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 28/07/16 21:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
It seems that in your pop_value_range you assume you only pop one
range per BB - while
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 27/04/16 00:14, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be
[-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as h
re-evaluated till the lattice reach a
fixpoint. Is that OK with you?
If we are to do this, we should be able to reuse the callbacks
vrp_visit_phi_node and vrp_visit_stmt as it is.
Do you have a reference to your DOM based prototype?
Thanks,
Kugan
Btw, you don't want to call vrp_initialize in evrp eit
are right. The problem was with the order of checking tcc_compare
and calling get_ops. We ended up calling get_ops where we should not.
Bootstrap and regression testing is ongoing. Is this OK for trunk if no
regressions?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-27 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
Hi Richard,
On 26/07/16 21:48, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:13 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi,
For testcase in pr71994, type of bb conditional result and the type of the
PHI stmt are different (as om.0_1 is int and the first PHI argument is
to test.
I have tested the last set of patch separately.
I will do more testing on this patch based on your feedback. Does this
look better?
Thanks,
Kugan
>From eefcd1c5444cf5dd9f121e8bd04148d324d06ffc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivek
should check the type before replacing
the value (punt otherwise). Attached patch does that. Bootstrapped and
regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no new regressions. Is this
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-26 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
operand_entry *oe = operand_entry_pool.allocate ();
Sorry about the breakage. Since final_range_test_p allows either lhs or
rhs to be SSA_NAME (for the different cases it accepts), we should
indeed check for TREE_CODE being SSA_NAME. Unfortunately it didn't
trigger in my testing. Lets wait for the maintainers conformation.
Thanks for working on this,
Kugan
rest of the patches in the series. Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-07-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_basic): Check cfun->after_inlining before
folding call to __builtin_constant_p wit
large number of ASSERT_EXPRs in the
default basic block. I am not sure if this would have any impact on
compile time/memory usage? If that is the case you might want to punt at
some length?
Thanks,
Kugan
had
to add other headers in few places due to the dependency. Are you OK
with this ?
Here is alternate patch where we keep struct value_range and enum
value_range_type to tree-vrp.h. May be it is a better approach? Please
let me know what is your preference.
Thanks,
Kugan
>F
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 22/07/16 22:49, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:27 PM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi,
Now that early vrp is moved as part of tree-vrp, there is only minimal
interface tree-vrp should expose for ipa-vrp. Howe
.
Thanks,
Kugan
>From 2e7d10923fefddafdeffc571e870508ac0ee193c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:42:44 +1000
Subject: [PATCH 4/7] Refactor vrp
---
gcc/tree-ssanames.h | 5 -
gcc/tree-vrp.c
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the review.
On 18/07/16 21:51, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 15/07/16 17:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.o
OK for trunk.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-07-20 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* tree-vrp.c (set_value_range): Use vrp_equiv_obstack with
BITMAP_ALLOC.
(add_equivalence): Likewise.
(get_value_range): Allocate value range with vrp_value_r
Hi Martin,
On 19/07/16 18:22, kugan wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review. I have revised the patch based on the review.
Please see the comments below.
Maybe it is better to separate value range and alignment summary
writing/reading to different functions. Here is another updated
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review. I have revised the patch based on the review.
Please see the comments below.
On 15/07/16 22:23, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
thanks for working on extending IPA-CP in this way. I do have a few
comments though:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:46:50PM +1000, kugan
Hi Andrew,
On 15/07/16 17:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 AM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Why separate out early VRP from tree-vrp? Just a little curious.
It is based on the discussion in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-01/ms
.
I will give this a try.
Thanks,
Kugan
fo;
/* Value range attributes used for zero/sign extension elimination. */
struct GTY ((tag ("1"))) range_info_def *range_info;
} GTY ((desc ("%1.typed.type ?" \
"!POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE ((tree)&%1)) : 2"))) info;
Thanks,
Kugan
Hi,
This patch teaches tree-vrp to use the VR set in params.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-07-14 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* tree-vrp.c (get_value_range): Teach PARM_DECL to use ipa-vrp
results.
Hi,
This patch extends ipa-cp/ipa-prop infrastructure to handle propagation
of VR.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-07-14 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* gcc.dg/ipa/vrp1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/ipa/vrp2.c: New test.
*
Hi,
This patch adds a very simple early vrp implementation. This visits the
basic blocks in the dominance order and set the Value Ranges (VR) for
SSA_NAMEs in the scope. Use this VR to discover more VRs. Restore the
old VR once the scope is exit.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog
Hi,
This patch re-factors common code in tree-vrp to be used in early vrp. I
am not entirely sure where I should place struct value_range. For now I
have placed in tree.h.
Thanks,
Kugan
2016-07-14 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* tree-ssanames.h
Hi,
This patch adds check for POINTER_TYPE_P before accessing
SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO in remap_ssa_name in gcc/tree-inline.c. This is not
related to IPA_VRP but was exposed by that.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-07-14 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
it for
the time being. That is, this patch is not intended for committing but
just to get the VRP tested.
Original patch which introduced this also talks about doing it earlier.
Thanks,
Kugan
>From 99f8e7884d582cfae2d7cb50ad59dab7ac6772fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kugan Vivekanandara
bootstrap and LTO bootstrap).
There are couple of testcase failures which I am looking into.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Kugan
with
gimple_assign.
Attached patch fixes the place where we remove the vector (-1).
Regression tested on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regressions.
Regression testing on aarc64-linux-gnu is ongoing. Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-06-10 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <
on tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regression. Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-06-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
PR middle-end/71408
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (zero_one_operation): Fix NEGATE_EXPR operand for
regression. Is this OK
for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-06-04 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
PR middle-end/71281
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (reassociate_bb): Set uid for negate stmt.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-06-04 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
izing range tests a_5(D) -[128, 159] and
-[192, 223]
pr46309.c.116t.reassoc1: into (a_5(D) & 4294967231) + 4294967168 > 31
Bootstrapped and regression testing on x86-64-linux-gnu and
ppc64le-linux-gnu doesn't have any new regressions. Also did regression
testing arm variants which has
On 28/05/16 01:28, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote:
Hi Richard,
This fix insertion point of stmt_to_insert based on your comments. In
insert_stmt_before_use , I now use find_insert_point such that we
insert the stmt_to_insert after its operands are defined. This means
that we now have to insert
PRs
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-28 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71269.c: New test.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-28 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (insert_stm
for trunk if the testing is fine ?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-28 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (swap_ops_for_binary_stmt): Fix swap such that
all fields including stmt_to_insert are swapped.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-28
Hi Jakub,
On 26 May 2016 at 18:18, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 02:17:56PM +1000, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
>> @@ -3767,8 +3767,10 @@ swap_o
inserted. If that is not the case, we have to insert
the stmt_to_insert before calling build_and_add_sum.
4. I also moved all the other stmt_to_insert insertion after the use
stmt are created.
Also regression tested on x86-64-linux gnu with no new regressions.
Is this OK for trunk,
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
in reducing the test-case is
appreciated.
Regression testing on x86_64-linux-gnu and bootstrap didn’t find any new issues.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-24 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* gfortran.dg/pr71252.f90: New test.
gcc/ChangeLog:
On 24 May 2016 at 18:36, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 05:13, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 23 May 2016 at 21:35, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
On 23 May 2016 at 21:35, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2016 at 21:07, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>&
work (optimized).
I will also try to gather test-cases based on testing/benchmarking.
Thanks,
Kugan
Hi Jeff,
On 20 May 2016 at 04:17, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2016 06:45 PM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Now that stage1 is open, I would like to get the type promotion passes
>> reviewed again. I hav
On 20 May 2016 at 21:07, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>>> I think it should have the same rank as op or op + 1 which
tested on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regressions.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-20 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71179.c: New test.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-20 Kugan Vivekanand
multiplication to
> rewrite_expr_tree time. For example by adding a ops->stmt_to_insert
> member.
>
Here is an implementation based on above. Bootstrap on x86-linux-gnu
is OK. regression testing is ongoing.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-20 Kugan Vivekanandarajah &
On 19 May 2016 at 18:55, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Kugan
> <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 19/05/16 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Th
Hi,
On 19/05/16 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah
> <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks for the fix. Just to elaborate (as mentioned in PR)
>>
>> At tree-ssa-reasso
We could try Martin Liška's approach, We could also move _17 = c_7(D)
* 3; at tree-ssa-reassoc.c:3897 satisfy the gcc_assert. We could do
this based on the use count of _17.
This patch does this. I have no preferences. Any thoughts ?
Thanks,
Kugan
On 19 May 2016 at 18:04, Martin Liška &
Hi Martin,
>
> I see various ICE after your commit r236356:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
Sorry for the breakage. Looking into it.
Thanks,
Kugan
nus_onep (last->op))
Is this Still OK. Bootstrap and regression testing on ARM, AARCH64 and
x86-64 didn’t have any new regressions.
Thanks,
Kugan
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40921.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40921.c
index e69de29..3a5a23a 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/
Hi,
static variable all_extensions in aarch64.c is not used and therefore
dead. I don’t see any reason why it should be there. Attached patch
removes this.
Bootstrapped on aarch64-linux-gnu. Regression testing is ongoing.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-17 Kugan
that based on the
feedback.
Please let me know what you thing.
Thanks,
Kugan
From 332e0e9f938c6af50e826d8224d07ebf3678a0e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:41:01 +1000
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Add new type promotio
testing on
x86-64-linux-gnu.
Does this look Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
PR middle-end/70841
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr70841.c: New test.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-05-05 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
anted.
Does this now look better?
Thanks,
Kugan
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586-2.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586-2.c
index e69de29..0dcfe32 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586-2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+/* {
tion. Please also add a testcase that catches
(-y) * x * (-z).
Added this to the testcase.
Does this look better now?
Thanks,
Kugan
2016-04-23 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
PR middle-end/40921
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr40921.c: New test.
gcc/Chang
On 27/04/16 00:14, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, kugan
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should be
[-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now.
This patch fix
wise with complex or vector math.
Btw, does it handle associating
x + 3 * x + x
to
5 * x
?
Added this to the testcase and verified it is working.
Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/C
uot;last").
Hi Richard,
Thanks. Here is an attempt which does this.
Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
2016-04-23 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
PR middle-end/40921
Hi Richard,
On 19/04/16 22:11, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:53 AM, kugan
<kuga
ession tested for x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regression. Is this OK for statege-1.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-04-17 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* tree-vrp.c (simplify_stmt_using_ranges): Convert CST BINOP COND_EXPR
to
COND_EXPR ? (CST BINOP 1) :
As pointed out by Richard, for signed & sign-bit-CST value range should
be [-INF, 0] range, not a [-INF, INF] range as happens now.
This patch fixes this. I bootstrapped and regression tested for
x86-64-linux-gnu with no new regression. Is this OK for statege-1.
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/Chang
hen stage 1 re-opens.
>
Hi Charles,
+static void
+arm_emit_long_call_profile_insn ()
+{
+ rtx sym_ref = gen_rtx_SYMBOL_REF (Pmode, "__gnu_mcount_nc");
+ /* if movt/movw are not available, use a constant pool */
+ if (!arm_arch_thumb2)
Should this be !TARGET_USE_MOVT?
Thanks,
Kugan
On 11/03/16 03:39, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:04:25AM +1100, kugan wrote:
Hi,
As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69708 and
corresponding mailing list discussion, IPA CP is not detecting a
jump-function with the sq function as value
added a check at determine_locally_known_aggregate_parts to detect
this. This fixes the testcase and passes x86-64-linux-gnu lto bootstrap
and regression testing with no new regression. Does this look sensible
place to fix this?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-03-01 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
pdated patch along what you suggested. Does this
look better ?
Thanks,
Kugan
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
index 17eb64f..bbb5ffb 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c
@@ -4674,6 +4674,41 @@ attempt_builtin_powi (gimple *stmt, vec
*ops)
modification to the ops vector.
Hi Richard,
Is the attached patch looks better?
Thanks,
Kugan
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586.c
index e69de29..a002bdd 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr63586.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa
Hi,
This is an attempt to fix missed optimization: x+x+x+x -> 4*x as
reported in PR63586.
Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
Is this OK for next stage1?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-02-26 Kugan Vivekanandarajah &
Hi,
This is an attempt to fix missed optimization: x + (-y * z * z) => x - y
* z * z as reported in PR40921.
Regression tested and bootstrapped on x86-64-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
Is this OK for next stage1?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-02-26 Kugan Vivekanandara
On 12/02/16 17:18, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
On 2016.02.08 at 09:49 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/18/2016 08:52 PM, Kugan wrote:
2016-01-19 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
PR middle-end/66726
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_range_tests): Handle tcc_compar
This issue also remains in 4.9 and 5.0 branches. Is this OK to backport
to the release branches.
Thanks,
Kugan
On 02/12/15 10:00, Kugan wrote:
>
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2015-11-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
>>&
Hi,
There is a redundant unshare_expr in ipa-prop. Attached patch removes
it. Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with no
new regressions.
Is this OK for trunk?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-01-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
* ipa-
201 - 300 of 525 matches
Mail list logo
