On 8/9/19 2:51 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 8/9/19 2:13 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> Of course I'm still afraid that the other code exists for a reason
>>> (tuning/hack/whatever...).
>>>
>>> Note that with the patch we're now applying
On 8/9/19 2:13 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Of course I'm still afraid that the other code exists for a reason
>> (tuning/hack/whatever...).
>>
>> Note that with the patch we're now applying LOOP_ALIGN to L2 here:
>> if (a)
>> foo = bar;
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Of course I'm still afraid that the other code exists for a reason
> (tuning/hack/whatever...).
>
> Note that with the patch we're now applying LOOP_ALIGN to L2 here:
> if (a)
> foo = bar;
> L2:
> blah;
>
> because there's a jump-around
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:24 PM Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> > > So docs have
> > >
> > > @defmac JUMP_ALIGN (@var{label})
> > > The alignment (log base 2) to put in front of @var{label}, which is
> > > a common destination of jumps and has no
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
> > So docs have
> >
> > @defmac JUMP_ALIGN (@var{label})
> > The alignment (log base 2) to put in front of @var{label}, which is
> > a common destination of jumps and has no fallthru incoming edge.
So, per docu: JUMP_ALIGN implies !fallthru ...
> >
On 7/11/19 11:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 5:52 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>>
>> On July 10, 2019 2:11:17 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
> The basic block index is not a DFS index, so no, that's not a
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 5:52 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On July 10, 2019 2:11:17 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> >The basic block index is not a DFS index, so no, that's not a test
> >for
> >> >backedge.
> >>
> >> I think in
On July 10, 2019 2:11:17 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> >The basic block index is not a DFS index, so no, that's not a test
>for
>> >backedge.
>>
>> I think in CFG RTL mode the BB index designates the order of the BBs
>in
>> the object
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> >The basic block index is not a DFS index, so no, that's not a test for
> >backedge.
>
> I think in CFG RTL mode the BB index designates the order of the BBs in
> the object file? So this is a way to identify backwards jumps?
Even if it means a
On July 9, 2019 3:10:19 PM GMT+02:00, Michael Matz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > So a "backedge" in this sense would be e->dest->index <
>e->src->index.
>> > No?
>>
>> To me the following would make sense.
>
>The basic block index is not a DFS index, so no,
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> > So a "backedge" in this sense would be e->dest->index < e->src->index.
> > No?
>
> To me the following would make sense.
The basic block index is not a DFS index, so no, that's not a test for
backedge.
Ciao,
Michael.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:23 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:22 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > I'm suggesting to restrict LOOP_ALIGN to only loop headers. That are the
> > > > basic
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:22 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I'm suggesting to restrict LOOP_ALIGN to only loop headers. That are the
> > > basic blocks for which it makes the biggest sense. I quite some binary
> > > size
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm suggesting to restrict LOOP_ALIGN to only loop headers. That are the
> > basic blocks for which it makes the biggest sense. I quite some binary
> > size reductions on SPEC2006 and SPEC2017. Speed numbers are also slightly
>
On 7/9/19 11:56 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm suggesting to restrict LOOP_ALIGN to only loop headers. That are the
>> basic blocks for which it makes the biggest sense. I quite some binary
>> size reductions on SPEC2006 and SPEC2017. Speed numbers are also slightly
>> positive.
>>
>>
> Hi.
>
> I'm suggesting to restrict LOOP_ALIGN to only loop headers. That are the
> basic blocks for which it makes the biggest sense. I quite some binary
> size reductions on SPEC2006 and SPEC2017. Speed numbers are also slightly
> positive.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and
16 matches
Mail list logo
