On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
ChangeLog
2014-06-25 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR rtl-optimization/61608
*
On 06/25/14 07:35, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hello,
so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
ChangeLog
2014-06-25 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR rtl-optimization/61608
* passes.def (peephole2): Readd peephole2 pass
On 06/25/14 09:04, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-25 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
So why is the peephole not working in its current location?
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
that is what I read out of dumps:
If peephole2 is executed early we see following pattern transformation:
[ ... ]
Ask an ARM
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
It isn't.
It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually if-convert the
fall-thru path of the conditional and eliminate the conditional. Which, on the
surface seems
2014-06-25 17:50 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com:
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
It isn't.
It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually if-convert the
fall-thru path of the
On 06/25/14 10:02, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-25 17:50 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com:
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
It isn't.
It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually
On 06/25/14 09:50, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old code.
It isn't.
It appears that with the peep2 pass moved that we actually if-convert the
fall-thru path of the conditional and eliminate
2014-06-25 19:15 GMT+02:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 06/25/14 10:02, Kai Tietz wrote:
2014-06-25 17:50 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com:
On 06/25/2014 08:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Ask an ARM maintainer if the new code is actually better than the old
code.
It isn't.
It
On 06/25/2014 06:35 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hello,
so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
We don't need a second peephole pass. Please try this.
I think there's room for cleanup here, depending on when we leave
2014-06-25 20:12 GMT+02:00 Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com:
On 06/25/2014 06:35 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
Hello,
so there seems to be a fallout caused by moving peephole2 pass. See PR/61608.
So we need indeed 2 peephole2 passes.
We don't need a second peephole pass. Please try this.
I think
10 matches
Mail list logo
