PING^2: [RFC] Whole Program Devirtualization

Ping again. Thanks, Feng From: Feng Xue OS Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 9:46 AM To: Martin Liška; Jan Hubicka; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: JiangNing OS Subject: PING: [RFC] Whole Program Devirtualization Honza, How do you think about proposal in this

PING: [RFC] Whole Program Devirtualization

Honza, How do you think about proposal in this RFC? Thanks a lot. Best Regards, Feng From: Martin Liška Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 9:45 PM To: Feng Xue OS; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: JiangNing OS; Jan Hubicka Subject: Re: [RFC] Whole Program

Re: GCC [RFC] Whole Program Devirtualization

code is very large. As I know, google enables WPD in building of chrome, while it is based on llvm. Thanks, Feng From: Basile Starynkevitch Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 8:36 PM To: Feng Xue OS Cc: basile.starynkevi...@cea.fr; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: GCC

[RFC] Whole Program Devirtualization

1. Background C++ Devirtualization is meant to determine all possible class type identities of a virtual dynamic call, and try to transform it to direct static call, or certain kind of statements with lower runtime cost. Current implementation in GCC tends to adopt a somewhat conservative scheme,

Question about non-POD class type

Sorry, sent to wrong mail list. From: Feng Xue OS Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 4:30 PM To: gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Question about non-POD class type For an instance of a non-POD class, can I always assume that any operation on it should be type

Re: [RFC] A memory gathering optimization for loop

>> To simplify explanation of this memory gathering optimization, pseudo >> code on original nested loops is given as: >> >> outer-loop ( ) { /* data in inner loop are also invariant in outer loop. >> */ >> ... >> inner-loop (iter, iter_count) { /* inner loop to apply MGO */ >> >>

Re: [RFC] A memory gathering optimization for loop

>> -Original Message- >> From: Feng Xue OS >> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:28 PM >> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org >> Cc: JiangNing OS ; Hao Liu OS >> >> Subject: [RFC] A memory gathering optimization for loop >> >> 1. Background >&

[RFC] A memory gathering optimization for loop

1. Background In a loop, it is optimal if only one memory stream is activated, that is, all memory operations sequentially access one data region. But that is always not the case, such as traversing link list and manipulating discrete arrays. In this scenario, the loop would contain multiple scatt

[RFC] A memory gathering optimization for loop

1. Background In a loop, it is optimal if only one memory stream is activated, that is, all memory operations sequentially access one data region. But that is always not the case, such as traversing link list and manipulating discrete arrays. In this scenario, the loop would contain multiple scatt

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

>> >> > >> >> >> >> >> There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of >> >> >> code like: >> >> >> >> >> >> int foo (int n) >> >> >> { >> >> >> int t1 = 8 * n; >> >> >> int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); >> >> >> >> >> >> return t1 - t2; >> >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> It

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

> >> >> >> There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code >> >> like: >> >> >> >> int foo (int n) >> >> { >> >> int t1 = 8 * n; >> >> int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); >> >> >> >> return t1 - t2; >> >> } >> >> >> >> It can be perfectly caught by the rule "(A * C)

Re: [RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

>> There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code like: >> >> int foo (int n) >> { >> int t1 = 8 * n; >> int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); >> >> return t1 - t2; >> } >> >> It can be perfectly caught by the rule "(A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A +- B) * >> C", and >>

[RFC] Add new flag to specify output constraint in match.pd

Hi, There is a match-folding issue derived from pr94234. A piece of code like: int foo (int n) { int t1 = 8 * n; int t2 = 8 * (n - 1); return t1 - t2; } It can be perfectly caught by the rule "(A * C) +- (B * C) -> (A +- B) * C", and be folded to constant "8". But thi

Re: Git push account

As pointed out by Andreas, I used wrong git repo URL. Now it works. Thanks, Feng From: Jeff Law Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 12:18 AM To: Feng Xue OS; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Git push account On Sat, 2020-01-25 at 12:39 +, Feng Xue OS wrote

Re: Git push account

Thanks. Feng From: Andreas Schwab Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 10:07 PM To: Feng Xue OS Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Git push account On Jan 25 2020, Feng Xue OS wrote: > Which account should I use to push my local patch to git repo of gcc?

Git push account

Which account should I use to push my local patch to git repo of gcc? I have a sourceware account that works for svn, but now it doesn't for git. Actually both below commands were tried, but failed. git push ssh://f...@sourceware.org/gcc/gcc.git ..., git push ssh://f...@gcc.gnu.org/gcc/gcc.gi

Re: How to modify Bugzilla tracker

It works. Thanks, Feng From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org on behalf of Feng Xue OS Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 10:13 AM To: Jonathan Wakely; Andreas Schwab Cc: Thomas Schwinge; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; overse...@sourceware.org Subject: Re: How to modify Bugzilla

Re: How to modify Bugzilla tracker

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 09:29, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> On Dez 12 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 09:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi! >> >> >> >> I'm not an adm

Re: How to modify Bugzilla tracker

I have a sourceware.org account, but can not correlate the account with Bugzilla login. Just want to assign a tracker to someone. Thanks, Feng From: Jonathan Wakely Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:07 PM To: Feng Xue OS Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject

How to modify Bugzilla tracker

Hi, I want to alter some information of an existing Bugzilla tracker, such as assignee, but found there is no entrance in page of the Bugzilla tracker to do this. How can I get it? Thanks, Feng