On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
Note that partial PRE (enabled at -O3) can insert expressions into paths
that did _not_ execute the expression. For regular PRE you are right.
Richard.
I've thought about this some more, and Torvald's comment makes a
On 03/10/12 08:14, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 15:48 -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Torvald is this what you were thinking of?
Yes, but with an exit in the else branch or something that can cause x
not being read after the condition. I _suppose_ that your original
example would
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 15:48 -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Torvald is this what you were thinking of?
Yes, but with an exit in the else branch or something that can cause x
not being read after the condition. I _suppose_ that your original
example would be an allowed transformation but just
Note that partial PRE (enabled at -O3) can insert expressions into paths
that did _not_ execute the expression. For regular PRE you are right.
Richard.
I've thought about this some more, and Torvald's comment makes a lot of
sense. PRE can make things completely redundant, and a later pass
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 21:18 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/29/12 03:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
So fixing up individual passes is easier - I
On 03/07/12 03:18, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Torvald Riegeltrie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 21:18 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/29/12 03:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
So
On 02/29/12 03:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
So fixing up individual passes is easier - I can only think of PRE being
problematic right now, I am not aware that any other pass moves loads
or stores. So I'd simply pre-compute the stmt bit in PRE and adjust
the
if
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/29/12 03:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
So fixing up individual passes is easier - I can only think of PRE being
problematic right now, I am not aware that any other pass moves loads
or stores. So I'd simply
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 21:18 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/29/12 03:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
So fixing up individual passes is easier - I can only think of PRE being
problematic right now, I am not aware that
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/28/12 13:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/28/12 09:44, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
PR middle-end/51752
* gimple.h (gimple_in_transaction): New.
(gimple_set_in_transaction): New.
(struct
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/27/12 11:02, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
For that matter, didn't rth add a memory barrier at the beginning of
transactions last week? That would mean that we can't hoist
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/27/2012 11:22 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Ok. I see. So, I think what would be best is to have a way to check
whether
a store/load is part of a transaction - do we have a way to do that right
now?
(For example
On 02/28/2012 04:39 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Andrew MacLeodamacl...@redhat.com wrote:
I t would seem appropriate to me that in the future, perhaps the CFG could
have a flag set for any basic block which is in a transaction... This would
make it pretty
On 02/27/12 08:22, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
transform by making transaction load/store stmts behave the same as
potentially trapping stmts (thus, only optimize if the memory is accessed
unconditional somewhere else). That would work for PRE as well.
[easiest would be to make *_could_trap_p
On 02/28/12 11:05, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/27/12 08:22, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
transform by making transaction load/store stmts behave the same as
potentially trapping stmts (thus, only optimize if the memory is accessed
unconditional somewhere else). That would work for PRE as well.
On 02/28/12 09:44, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
PR middle-end/51752
* gimple.h (gimple_in_transaction): New.
(gimple_set_in_transaction): New.
(struct gimple_statement_base): Add in_transaction field.
* tree-ssa-loop-im.c: (movement_possibility): Restrict movement of
On 02/28/12 13:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/28/12 09:44, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
PR middle-end/51752
* gimple.h (gimple_in_transaction): New.
(gimple_set_in_transaction): New.
(struct gimple_statement_base): Add in_transaction field.
*
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 10:34 -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 02/24/12 07:10, Torvald Riegel wrote:
safety. I didn't have time to look at Aldy's patch yet, but a first
safe and conservative way would be to treat transactions as full
transformation barriers, and prevent
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 10:34 -0600, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 02/24/12 07:10, Torvald Riegel wrote:
safety. I didn't have time to look at Aldy's patch yet, but a first
safe and conservative way would be to treat
Again, __transactions being barriers and all, I don't think we should
complicate things unnecessarily at this point, since it doesn't happen.
Yes. Based on Richard Guenther's examples, my question was whether your
code (without having actually looked at it ;) ) would also allow
Ok. I see. So, I think what would be best is to have a way to check whether
a store/load is part of a transaction - do we have a way to do that right now?
(For example a flag on a gimple stmt?) Then we can simply avoid the LIM
We do not (*). My patch accumulates that information on demand.
For that matter, didn't rth add a memory barrier at the beginning of
transactions last week? That would mean that we can't hoist anything
outside of a transaction anyhow. Or was it not a full memory barrier?
It's now a full memory barrier for all global memory and for local statics
if their
On 02/27/2012 11:22 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
Ok. I see. So, I think what would be best is to have a way to check
whether
a store/load is part of a transaction - do we have a way to do that
right now?
(For example a flag on a gimple stmt?) Then we can simply avoid the LIM
We do not (*).
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
For that matter, didn't rth add a memory barrier at the beginning of
transactions last week? That would mean that we can't hoist anything
outside of a transaction anyhow. Or was it not a full memory barrier?
It's now a full memory
On 02/27/12 11:02, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
For that matter, didn't rth add a memory barrier at the beginning of
transactions last week? That would mean that we can't hoist anything
outside of a transaction anyhow. Or was it not a full memory
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:58 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
about hit me. Instead now I save all loads
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/24/12 07:10, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:58 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
about hit me. Instead now I save all loads in a function and iterate
through them in a brute force way. I'd like to rewrite this into a hash
of some sort, but before I go any
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:58 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
about hit me. Instead now I save all loads in a function and iterate
through them in a brute force way. I'd like to
On 02/24/12 07:10, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 09:58 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Aldy Hernandezal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
about hit me. Instead now I save all loads in a function and iterate
through
On 02/23/12 12:19, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
about hit me. Instead now I save all loads in a function and iterate
through them in a brute force way. I'd like to rewrite this into a hash
of some sort, but before I go any further I'm interested to know if the
main idea is ok.
For the record, it may
31 matches
Mail list logo
