; > at.
> >
> >
> >
> > Murthy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: shuxin yang [mailto:shuxin.ope...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:32 AM
> > To: Chandrasekhar Murthy
> > Cc: Sun Chan; open64-
you are looking
> at.
>
>
>
> Murthy
>
>
>
>
>
> From: shuxin yang [mailto:shuxin.ope...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:32 AM
> To: Chandrasekhar Murthy
> Cc: Sun Chan; open64-devel
>
> Subject: Re: [Open64-d
m<mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 8:20 AM
To: Chandrasekhar Murthy
Cc: David Coakley; open64-devel
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] patch to enable more if-conversion
Thx Murthy, does this mean we should keep these nodes till after LNO?
David,
Is your if-conv fix at mainopt
nday, June 06, 2011 8:20 AM
> To: Chandrasekhar Murthy
> Cc: David Coakley; open64-devel
> Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] patch to enable more if-conversion
>
> Thx Murthy, does this mean we should keep these nodes till after LNO?
> David,
> Is your if-conv fix at mainopt? Or is it at preopt?
Coakley; open64-devel
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] patch to enable more if-conversion
Thx Murthy, does this mean we should keep these nodes till after LNO?
David,
Is your if-conv fix at mainopt? Or is it at preopt? From this
discussion so far, this should be done in mainopt, i.e. the lowering
into your
Message-
> From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:54 PM
> To: David Coakley
> Cc: open64-devel
> Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] patch to enable more if-conversion
>
> I forgot why we did cand anymore. OTOH, I do remember lowering that
> with p
June 04, 2011 9:54 PM
To: David Coakley
Cc: open64-devel
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] patch to enable more if-conversion
I forgot why we did cand anymore. OTOH, I do remember lowering that
with profile feedback info is tricky to get that right. Can you double
check that you are not breaking profile
I forgot why we did cand anymore. OTOH, I do remember lowering that
with profile feedback info is tricky to get that right. Can you double
check that you are not breaking profile info and consistency check
with your changes?
Sun
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:53 PM, David Coakley wrote:
> Could a gatek
Could a gatekeeper please review the attached change that enables more
if-conversion?
Here is the proposed log message:
Convert:
if (a && b)
x = ...
To:
if (a)
if (b)
x = ...
To enable more if-conversion.
Without this transformation, WHIRL-lowering creates control flow
that WOPT-if-conve
