On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Steven Bosscher
>> wrote:
>>> I'll see if I can make the intraprocedural version work again before
>>> Christmass.
>>
>> Well, it works, but t
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> I'll see if I can make the intraprocedural version work again before
>> Christmass.
>
> Well, it works, but then again it really does not. For example, the
> original implement
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I'll see if I can make the intraprocedural version work again before
> Christmass.
Well, it works, but then again it really does not. For example, the
original implementation doesn't even look at the alignment of &var. So
the pass doesn't
Steven Bosscher wrote:
I'll see if I can make the intraprocedural version work again before
Christmass. It shouldn't be that much work, actually. But it's be nice
to have some test cases to demonstrate that the intraprocedural
version would do any good.
That would be very nice !
To help to bo
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
>> Maybe this is more/also relevant:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01405.html
>>
>> dorit
>
> Jeepers creepers - why has this never been included in the trunk (it might
> be quite a bit of work to get it going again, and I certa
Dorit Nuzman wrote:
Steven Bosscher
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Daniel Berlin
wrote:
This pass may even be on the lno branch or something.
It used to be, at least, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-08/
msg00470.html
Happy hacking, Toon :-)
Maybe this is more/also relev
> Steven Bosscher
> Sent by: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
>
> 30/11/2009 09:01
>
> To
>
> Daniel Berlin
>
> cc
>
> Richard Guenther , Toon Moene
> , gcc mailing list
>
> Subject
>
> Re: Caused by unknown alignment, was: Re: On the x86_64, does one
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This pass may even be on the lno branch or something.
It used to be, at least, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-08/msg00470.html
Happy hacking, Toon :-)
Ciao!
Steven
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>>
>>> Such a thing already existed a few years ago (IIRC Haifa had something
>>> that Dan picked up and passed on to me). But it never brought any
>>> benefits. I don't have the pass
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>> Such a thing already existed a few years ago (IIRC Haifa had something
>> that Dan picked up and passed on to me). But it never brought any
>> benefits. I don't have the pass anymore, but perhaps Dan still has a
>> copy of it somewhere.
>
>
> Such a thing already existed a few years ago (IIRC Haifa had something
> that Dan picked up and passed on to me). But it never brought any
> benefits. I don't have the pass anymore, but perhaps Dan still has a
> copy of it somewhere.
It was actually posted and reviewed, you can find it in the
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
>
>> This is where IPA could help. I created the following main program:
>>
>> real a(10), b(10), c(10)
>> a = 0.
>> b = 1.
>> print '(3(1x,z16))', loc(a), loc(b), loc(c)
>> call sum(a, b, c, 10)
>>
Toon Moene wrote:
This is where IPA could help. I created the following main program:
real a(10), b(10), c(10)
a = 0.
b = 1.
print '(3(1x,z16))', loc(a), loc(b), loc(c)
call sum(a, b, c, 10)
print *, c(5)
end
So the alignment of a, b and c is known a
Toon Moene wrote:
Tim Prince wrote:
> If you want those, you must request them with -mtune=barcelona.
OK, so it is an alignment issue (with -mtune=barcelona):
.L6:
movups 0(%rbp,%rax), %xmm0
movups (%rbx,%rax), %xmm1
incl%ecx
addps %xmm1, %xmm0
14 matches
Mail list logo
