On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
I want propose a more general solution.
1) Generic Annotation Support for gcc IR -- it is used attach to
application/optimization specific annotation to gimple statements and
annotations can be passed around across
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
I want propose a more general solution.
1) Generic Annotation Support for gcc IR -- it is used attach to
application/optimization
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
I can think of some more-or-less obvious high-level
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 04:55, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
2) Support of CallInfo for each callsite. This is an annotation, but
more standardized. The callinfo can be used to record information
I want propose a more general solution.
1) Generic Annotation Support for gcc IR -- it is used attach to
application/optimization specific annotation to gimple statements and
annotations can be passed around across passes. In gcc, I only see
HISTOGRAM annotation for value profiling, which is
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
I can think of some more-or-less obvious high-level forms, one would
for example simply stick a new DISPATCH tree into gimple_call_fn
(similar to how we can have OBJ_TYPE_REF there), the DISPATCH
tree would be of
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Guenther
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 15:35, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
* tree-pass.h (pass_tree_convert_builtin_dispatch): New pass.
(pass_ipa_multiversion_dispatch): New pass.
* builtin-types.def (BT_PTR_FN_INT): New pointer type.
I submitted the patch.
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 15:35, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
* tree-pass.h (pass_tree_convert_builtin_dispatch): New pass.
(pass_ipa_multiversion_dispatch):
I can think of some more-or-less obvious high-level forms, one would
for example simply stick a new DISPATCH tree into gimple_call_fn
(similar to how we can have OBJ_TYPE_REF there), the DISPATCH
tree would be of variable length, first operand the selector function
and further operands
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Richard Guenther
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
3) it limits the lowering into one form which may not be ideal --
with builtin_dispatch, after hoisting optimization, the lowering can
use more efficient IFUNC scheme, for instance.
I see no reason why we
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Mike Stump wrote:
And to go one step further, if we had this, we could use this to define
all data manipulation machine built-ins as generic functions, available
to all compiles as normal c code, so portable code could use them
everywhere, and on platforms that had
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Xinliang David Li
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Here is the background for this feature:
1) People relies on function multi-version to explore hw features and
squeeze performance, but there is no standard ways of doing so, either
a) using indirect function calls
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Here is the background for this feature:
1) People relies on function multi-version to explore hw features and
squeeze performance,
Hi,
I want to submit this patch to google/main to make sure it is
available for our internal use at Google in order to materialize some
optimization opportunities. Let us continue this dicussion as I make
changes and submit this for review for trunk.
Thanks,
-Sri.
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:41
Ok. There may be more correctness related comments -- but those can be
addressed when available. For trunk, you need to address issues such
as multi-way dispatch.
Thanks,
David
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I want to submit this patch to
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
Here is the background for this feature:
1) People
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Xinliang David Li
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
I want this patch to be considered for google/main now. This is intended to
be submitted to trunk for review soon.
This patch has been tested with crosstool bootstrap using buildit and by
running all tests.
Patch
Here is the background for this feature:
1) People relies on function multi-version to explore hw features and
squeeze performance, but there is no standard ways of doing so, either
a) using indirect function calls with function pointers set at program
initialization; b) using manual dispatch at
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the comments. Please find inline responses.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
I want this patch to be considered for google/main now. This is
23 matches
Mail list logo
