This patch extends option -mbranch-protection=bti with an optional argument
as bti[+all] to force compiler to unconditionally insert bti for all
functions. Because a direct function call at the stage of compiling might be
rewritten to an indirect call with some kind of linker-generated thunk stub
Thanks,
Feng
From: Feng Xue OS
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:26 PM
To: Jan Hubicka; mjam...@suse.cz; Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: JiangNing OS
Subject: [PATCH/RFC 2/2] WPD: Enable whole program devirtualization at LTRANS
This patch
able whole program devirtualization
>On 9/16/21 22:29, Feng Xue OS wrote:
>>> On 9/16/21 05:25, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> This and following patches are composed to enable full devirtualization
>>>> under whole program assumption (so also called
Made some minor changes.
Thanks,
Feng
From: Feng Xue OS
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 5:26 PM
To: Jan Hubicka; mjam...@suse.cz; Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: JiangNing OS
Subject: [PATCH/RFC 2/2] WPD: Enable whole program
: Enable whole program devirtualization
>On 9/16/21 22:29, Feng Xue OS wrote:
>>> On 9/16/21 05:25, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> This and following patches are composed to enable full devirtualization
>>>> under whole program assumption (so also called
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Feng
---
2021-09-23 Feng Xue
gcc/ChangeLog
PR tree-optimization/102400
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (vn_reference_insert_pieces): Initialize
result_vdef to zero value.
---
gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux.
Thanks,
Feng
---
2021-09-23 Feng Xue
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/102451
* tree-ssa-dse.c (delete_dead_or_redundant_call): Record bb of stmt
before removal.
---
gcc/tree-ssa-dse.c | 5 +++--
1 file
>On 9/16/21 22:29, Feng Xue OS wrote:
>>> On 9/16/21 05:25, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> This and following patches are composed to enable full devirtualization
>>>> under whole program assumption (so also called whole-program
>>
>On 9/16/21 05:25, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> This and following patches are composed to enable full devirtualization
>> under whole program assumption (so also called whole-program
>> devirtualization, WPD for short), which is an enhancement to current
>> s
This patch is to extend applicability of full devirtualization to LTRANS stage.
Normally, whole program assumption would not hold when WPA splits
whole compilation into more than one LTRANS partitions. To avoid information
lost for WPD at LTRANS, we will record all vtable nodes and related member
This and following patches are composed to enable full devirtualization
under whole program assumption (so also called whole-program
devirtualization, WPD for short), which is an enhancement to current
speculative devirtualization. The base of the optimization is how to
identify class type that is
Any transformation involving cfg alteration would face same problem,
it is not that easy to update new cfg with reasonable and seemly-correct
profile count. We can adjust probability for impacted condition bbs, but
lack of a utility like what static profile estimating pass does, and only
Yes. Condition to to switch two versioned loops is "true", the first two
arguments should be 100% and 0%.
It is different from normal loop split, we could not deduce exactly precise
probability for
condition-based loop split, since cfg inside loop2 would be changed.
(invar-branch is replaced
For an instance of a non-POD class, can I always assume that any
operation on it should be type-safe, any wrong or even trick code
to violate this is UB in C++ spec? For example, here are some ways:
union {
Type1 *p1;
Type2 *p2;
};
or
union {
Type1 t1;
Type2 t2;
};
or
void
>> gcc/
>> PR tree-optimization/98598
>> * Makefile.in (OBJS): Add tree-ssa-loop-mgo.o.
>> * common.opt (-ftree-loop-mgo): New option.
>
> Just a quick comment - -ftree-loop-mgo is user-facing and it isn't really a
> good
> name. -floop-mgo would be better but still I'd
>> This patch implements a new loop optimization according to the proposal
>> in RFC given at
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-January/234682.html.
>> So do not repeat the idea in this mail. Hope your comments on it.
>
> With the caveat that I'm not an optimization expert (but no one
With the new pattern rule (T)(A) +- (T)(B) -> (T)(A +- B),
some testcases are simplified and could not keep expected
code pattern as test-check. Minor changes are made to those
cases to avoid simplification effect of the rule.
Tested on x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux.
Feng
---
2020-09-16 Feng
>> Add a rule (T)(A) +- (T)(B) -> (T)(A +- B), which works only when (A +- B)
>> could be folded to a simple value. By this rule, a
>> plusminus-mult-with-convert
>> expression could be handed over to the rule (A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A +- B).
>
>Please use INTEGRAL_TYPE_P () instead of TREE_CODE
>> This patch is to handle simplification of plusminus-mult-with-convert
>> expression
>> as ((T) X) +- ((T) Y), in which at least one of (X, Y) is result of
>> multiplication.
>> This is done in forwprop pass. We try to transform it to (T) (X +- Y), and
>> resort
>> to gimple-matcher to fold
Add a rule (T)(A) +- (T)(B) -> (T)(A +- B), which works only when (A +- B)
could be folded to a simple value. By this rule, a plusminus-mult-with-convert
expression could be handed over to the rule (A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A +- B).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux.
Feng
---
From: Richard Biener
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:39 PM
To: Feng Xue OS
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Ping: [PATCH 1/2] Fold plusminus_mult expr with multi-use operands
(PR 94234)
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 5:17 AM Feng Xue OS via Gcc-pa
Thanks,
Feng
From: Feng Xue OS
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 2:06 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fold plusminus_mult expr with multi-use operands (PR 94234)
For pattern A * C +- B * C -> (A +- B) * C, simplification is disabled
From: Gcc-patches on behalf of Feng Xue OS
via Gcc-patches
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 5:27 PM
To: Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2 V3] Simplify plusminus-mult-with-convert expr in forwprop
(PR 94234)
This patch is to handle simplification
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31 2020, Feng Xue OS wrote:
>> > This patch is to fix a bug that cost that is used to evaluate clone
>> > candidate
>> > becomes negative due to integer overflow.
>> >
>> > Feng
>> > ---
>> > 2020-08-31 Feng Xue
>> >
>> > gcc/
>> > PR tree-optimization/96806
>>
Attach patch file.
Feng
From: Gcc-patches on behalf of Feng Xue OS
via Gcc-patches
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 5:27 PM
To: Richard Biener; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2 V3] Simplify plusminus-mult-with-convert expr in forwprop
(PR
This patch is to handle simplification of plusminus-mult-with-convert expression
as ((T) X) +- ((T) Y), in which at least one of (X, Y) is result of
multiplication.
This is done in forwprop pass. We try to transform it to (T) (X +- Y), and
resort
to gimple-matcher to fold (X +- Y) instead of
For pattern A * C +- B * C -> (A +- B) * C, simplification is disabled
when A and B are not single-use. This patch is a minor enhancement
on the pattern, which allows folding if final result is found to be a
simple gimple value (constant/existing SSA).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
>> >> gcc/
>> >> PR tree-optimization/94234
>> >> * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_binary_with_convert): New
>> >> function.
>> >> * (fwprop_ssa_val): Move it before its new caller.
>>
>> > No * at this line. There's an entry for (pass_forwprop::execute) missing.
>> OK.
>>
>> gcc/
>> PR tree-optimization/94234
>> * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify_binary_with_convert): New function.
>> * (fwprop_ssa_val): Move it before its new caller.
> No * at this line. There's an entry for (pass_forwprop::execute) missing.
OK.
> I don't think the
Thanks,
Feng
From: Feng Xue OS
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 5:17 PM
To: Richard Biener
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Marc Glisse
Subject: [PATCH V2] Add pattern for pointer-diff on addresses with same
base/offset (PR 94234)
As Richard's comment, this
>>> the component is "ipa," please change that when you commit the patch.
>> Mistake has been made, I'v pushed it. Is there a way to correct it? git push
>> --force?
>
> There is. You need to wait until tomorrow (after the commit message
> gets copied to gcc/ChangeLog by a script) and then push
>> gcc/
>> PR tree-optimization/96806
> the component is "ipa," please change that when you commit the patch.
Mistake has been made, I'v pushed it. Is there a way to correct it? git push
--force?
Thanks,
Feng
This patch is to fix a bug that cost that is used to evaluate clone candidate
becomes negative due to integer overflow.
Feng
---
2020-08-31 Feng Xue
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/96806
* ipa-cp.c (decide_about_value): Use safe_add to avoid cost addition
overflow.
As Richard's comment, this patch is composed to simplify generalized
binary-with-convert pattern like ((T) X) OP ((T) Y). Instead of creating
almost duplicated rules into match.pd, we try to transform it to (T) (X OP Y),
and apply simplification on (X OP Y) in forwprop pass.
Regards,
Feng
---
> Hello,
> with Martin we spent some time looking into exchange2 and my
> understanding of the problem is the following:
>
> There is the self recursive function digits_2 with the property that it
> has 10 nested loops and calls itself from the innermost.
> Now we do not do amazing job on
nks,
Feng
From: Marc Glisse
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:32 PM
To: Feng Xue OS
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add pattern for pointer-diff on addresses with same
base/offset (PR 94234)
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Ah, looking at the
:30 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Feng Xue OS
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add pattern for pointer-diff on addresses with same
base/offset (PR 94234)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:33 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> >> Ah, looking at
ener
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 4:30 PM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Feng Xue OS
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add pattern for pointer-diff on addresses with same
base/offset (PR 94234)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:33 PM Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, Feng Xue OS via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> * match.pd ((PTR + A) - (PTR + B)) -> (ptrdiff_t)(A - B): New
>> simplification.
> Not new, modified.
OK.
>> * ((PTR_A + O) - (PTR_B + O)) -> (PTR_A - PTR_B): New simplification.
> O might not be the best choice because of how close it looks to 0.
OK.
> What don't you like
>> This patch is meant to add match rules to simplify patterns as:
>>
>> o. (pointer + offset_a) - (pointer + offset_b) -> (ptrdiff_t) (offset_a
>> - offset_b)
>> o. (pointer_a + offset) - (pointer_b + offset) -> (pointer_a - pointer_b)
> You are also changing the existing pattern which
Clone materialization might produce some improper debug output as:
Original--
cloning foo/271 to foo.constprop/334
replace map: 0 -> xxx1->yyy
m_always_copy_start: 1
IPA adjusted parameters: foo (...)
{
...
}
And a better output could be:
cloning foo/271 to foo.constprop/334
This patch is meant to add match rules to simplify patterns as:
o. (pointer + offset_a) - (pointer + offset_b) -> (ptrdiff_t) (offset_a -
offset_b)
o. (pointer_a + offset) - (pointer_b + offset) -> (pointer_a - pointer_b)
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux.
Feng
42 matches
Mail list logo
