On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:02 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/12/20 2:44 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 10/7/20 10:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> As said I'd have a BB-local pass over BBs recording the index variable
> >> and the range covered by the BBs gcond, plus recording how many excess
>
On 10/12/20 8:39 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/6/20 4:12 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/6/20 9:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
But is it really extensible with the current implementation? I
doubt so.
I must agree with the
On 10/12/20 2:44 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/7/20 10:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
As said I'd have a BB-local pass over BBs recording the index variable
and the range covered by the BBs gcond, plus recording how many excess
stmts there are for eventual code motion.
Only after that BB-local
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:39:24PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> All right, I started to use init_range_entry in combination with
> linearize_expr_tree.
> One thing I have problem with is that linearize_expr_tree doesn't properly
> mark
> all statements as visited for cases like:
Not sure if
On 10/7/20 10:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
As said I'd have a BB-local pass over BBs recording the index variable
and the range covered by the BBs gcond, plus recording how many excess
stmts there are for eventual code motion.
Only after that BB-local pass start to group BBs in a walk from
On 10/6/20 4:12 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/6/20 9:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
But is it really extensible with the current implementation? I doubt so.
I must agree with the statement. So let's make the pass properly.
I would
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:03 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/6/20 9:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > But is it really extensible with the current implementation? I doubt so.
>
> I must agree with the statement. So let's make the pass properly.
> I would need a help with the algorithm where I'm
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 10/6/20 9:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > But is it really extensible with the current implementation? I doubt so.
>
> I must agree with the statement. So let's make the pass properly.
> I would need a help with the algorithm
On 10/6/20 9:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
But is it really extensible with the current implementation? I doubt so.
I must agree with the statement. So let's make the pass properly.
I would need a help with the algorithm where I'm planning to do the following
steps:
1) for each BB ending with
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:09 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 10/6/20 2:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > Ah, by just using the outgoing_range class, all you are getting is static
> > edges. so a TRUE edge is always a [1,1] and a false edge is [0,0]
> > I provided that class so you could get the
On 10/6/20 9:09 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/6/20 2:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Ah, by just using the outgoing_range class, all you are getting is
static edges. so a TRUE edge is always a [1,1] and a false edge is [0,0]
I provided that class so you could get the constant edges on switches.
On 10/6/20 2:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Ah, by just using the outgoing_range class, all you are getting is static
edges. so a TRUE edge is always a [1,1] and a false edge is [0,0]
I provided that class so you could get the constant edges on switches.
if you want to get actual ranges for
On 10/6/20 8:09 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/2/20 4:19 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/2/20 9:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Yes, you simply get all sorts of conditions that hold when a
condition is
true, not just those based on the SSA name you put in. But it occured
to me that the use-case is
On 10/2/20 4:19 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/2/20 9:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Yes, you simply get all sorts of conditions that hold when a condition is
true, not just those based on the SSA name you put in. But it occured
to me that the use-case is somewhat different - for
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:23 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/24/20 2:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>> Hope this is constructive
> >>> Dave
> >>
> >> Thank you David. All of them very very
On 10/2/20 9:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Yes, you simply get all sorts of conditions that hold when a
condition is
true, not just those based on the SSA name you put in. But it occured
to me that the use-case is somewhat different - for switch-conversion
you want to know whether the test
On 9/29/20 10:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:05 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/24/20 2:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is constructive
Dave
Thank you David. All of
On 9/24/20 2:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is constructive
Dave
Thank you David. All of them very very useful!
There's updated version of the patch.
I noticed several functions without a
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:05 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/24/20 2:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>> Hope this is constructive
> >>> Dave
> >>
> >> Thank you David. All of them very very
On 9/24/20 2:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is constructive
Dave
Thank you David. All of them very very useful!
There's updated version of the patch.
Hey.
What a juicy patch review!
I
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Hope this is constructive
> > Dave
>
> Thank you David. All of them very very useful!
>
> There's updated version of the patch.
I noticed several functions without a function-level comment.
-
PING^1
On 9/2/20 1:53 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/1/20 4:50 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Hope this is constructive
Dave
Thank you David. All of them very very useful!
There's updated version of the patch.
Martin
200
Subject: [PATCH] Add if-chain to switch conversion pass.
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/14799
PR ipa/88702
* Makefile.in: Add new gimple-if-to-switch.o.
* common.opt: Add new option.
* dbgcnt.def (DEBUG_COUNTER): Add new debug counter.
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -fconvert-if-to-swi
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 13:47 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> There's a new version of the patch attempt. I mentioned couple of
> issues with the v1 here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/542821.html
>
> The patch addresses the biggest blocker which fact that the
>
Hello.
There's a new version of the patch attempt. I mentioned couple of issues with
the v1 here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/542821.html
The patch addresses the biggest blocker which fact that the optimization was
done unconditionally.
Now the transformation happens
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:41:25 +0100
Martin Liška wrote:
> On 11/6/19 10:02 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > Also why do you punt on duplicate conditions like in
> >
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/if-to-switch-4.c
> >> +int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >> +{
> >> + if (argc
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:39 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/5/19 1:38 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:49 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>> The patch adds a new pass that identifies a series of if-elseif
On 11/13/19 4:43 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
Not a review, just a few questions:
Hello.
Thank you for it.
1) what does it do if __builtin_expect* has been used, does it preserve
the probabilities and if in the end decides to expand as ifs,
On 11/6/19 10:02 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
Also why do you punt on duplicate conditions like in
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/if-to-switch-4.c
+int main(int argc, char **argv)
+{
+ if (argc == 1)
+ else if (argc == 2)
+ else if (argc == 3)
+ else if (argc == 4)
+ else if
On 11/5/19 1:38 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:49 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
The patch adds a new pass that identifies a series of if-elseif
statements and transform then into a GIMPLE switch (if possible).
The
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Not a review, just a few questions:
>
> Hello.
>
> Thank you for it.
>
> >
> > 1) what does it do if __builtin_expect* has been used, does it preserve
> > the probabilities and if in the end decides to expand as ifs, are those
> >
On 11/4/19 3:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
The patch adds a new pass that identifies a series of if-elseif
statements and transform then into a GIMPLE switch (if possible).
The pass runs right after tree-ssa pass and I decided to
On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:38:27 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:49 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > The patch adds a new pass that identifies a series of if-elseif
> > > statements and transform then into a
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:49 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > The patch adds a new pass that identifies a series of if-elseif
> > statements and transform then into a GIMPLE switch (if possible).
> > The pass runs right after tree-ssa
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> The patch adds a new pass that identifies a series of if-elseif
> statements and transform then into a GIMPLE switch (if possible).
> The pass runs right after tree-ssa pass and I decided to implement
> matching of various forms that
35 matches
Mail list logo
