[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 --- Comment #9 from Jim Wilson --- Author: wilson Date: Wed Oct 11 03:23:41 2017 New Revision: 253628 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253628=gcc=rev Log: Allow 2 insns from sched group to issue in same cycle, if no stalls needed.

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 --- Comment #8 from Wilco --- (In reply to jim.wilson from comment #7) > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:20 AM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org > wrote: > > Do you think it might be feasible to update resource usage of a schedule

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 --- Comment #7 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org --- On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:20 AM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Do you think it might be feasible to update resource usage of a schedule > group? > Or would it be

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 --- Comment #5 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org --- On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:25 AM, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > To more accurately schedule fusion pairs wouldn't we need to specify the > scheduling behaviour of

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 --- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson --- Created attachment 41754 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41754=edit Assembly output with patch.

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 --- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson --- Created attachment 41753 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41753=edit Assembly output without patch.

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 --- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson --- Created attachment 41752 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41752=edit Proposed patch to fix scheduler/fusing problem.

[Bug rtl-optimization/81434] New: AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81434 Bug ID: 81434 Summary: AArch64 instruction fusing and pipeline scheduling problem Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [gomp4.1] fix dependency scheduling problem

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:46:59PM -0700, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > commit 6d8f6db0583326d803c7c7abd8ea26cc842643fc > Author: Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> > Date: Fri Oct 2 15:40:30 2015 -0700 > > * task.c (gomp_task_maybe_wait_for_dependencies): Fix sched

[gomp4.1] fix dependency scheduling problem

f6db0583326d803c7c7abd8ea26cc842643fc Author: Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> Date: Fri Oct 2 15:40:30 2015 -0700 * task.c (gomp_task_maybe_wait_for_dependencies): Fix scheduling problem such that the first non parent_depends_on task does not end up at the end

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

Here is what I have commited (svn 196876.): a few updates were necessary. Christophe. 2013-03-21 Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org gcc/ * config/arm/arm-protos.h (tune_params): Add prefer_neon_for_64bits field. * config/arm/arm.c

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

Here is a new version of my patch, with the cleanup you requested. 2012-12-18 Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org gcc/ * config/arm/arm-protos.h (tune_params): Add prefer_neon_for_64bits field. * config/arm/arm.c (prefer_neon_for_64bits): New

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

Ping? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01197.html On 16 January 2013 14:46, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote: Ping^2 ? On 8 January 2013 17:24, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote: Ping? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01197.html

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

Ping^2 ? On 8 January 2013 17:24, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote: Ping? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01197.html Thanks, Christophe On 19 December 2012 16:59, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote: On 17 December 2012 16:12, Richard Earnshaw

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

Ping? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01197.html Thanks, Christophe On 19 December 2012 16:59, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote: On 17 December 2012 16:12, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote: On 29/11/12 17:16, Christophe Lyon wrote: On trunk I have noticed

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

On 17 December 2012 16:12, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote: On 29/11/12 17:16, Christophe Lyon wrote: On trunk I have noticed a regression in gfortran when using modulo scheduling: sms-1.f90 now fails, but I suspect it's not because of this patch since forcing compilation for armv5t

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

On 29/11/12 17:16, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, I have been working on a patch to avoid using Neon for 64 bits bitops when it's too expensive to move data between core and Neon registers. Benchmarking and validation look OK on the 4.7 branch (compiler configured for thumb and hard FP) -

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

Ping^2? On 7 December 2012 09:34, Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote: Ping? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg02558.html Thanks, Christophe.

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

On 29 November 2012 21:59, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Christophe Lyon wrote: 2012-11-28 Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org gcc/ * config/arm/arm-protos.h (tune_params): Add prefer_neon_for_64bits field. * config/arm/arm.c

[ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

Hi, I have been working on a patch to avoid using Neon for 64 bits bitops when it's too expensive to move data between core and Neon registers. Benchmarking and validation look OK on the 4.7 branch (compiler configured for thumb and hard FP) - validation on cortex-a9 board OK - bencharking shows

Re: [ARM] Turning off 64bits ops in Neon and gfortran/modulo-scheduling problem

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Christophe Lyon wrote: 2012-11-28 Christophe Lyon christophe.l...@linaro.org gcc/ * config/arm/arm-protos.h (tune_params): Add prefer_neon_for_64bits field. * config/arm/arm.c (prefer_neon_for_64bits): New variable. (arm_slowmul_tune): Default

Re: Scheduling problem - A more detailed explain

ÎâêØ wrote: Well... Is there anything I miss or forget to do ? Someone needs to step through code in a debugger and try to figure out what is going wrong. I made an initial attempt at that. I hacked gcc a little to try to force a failure with a contrived testcase. The first thing I

Re: Scheduling problem - A more detailed explain

2007/10/11, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks for you helpful hints ! And I am sorry for such a late reply. I have figured out this problem yesterday :-). Do we know for sure that the scheduler is failing here? Have you looked at -da RTL dumps to verify which pass is performing the

Scheduling problem

Hi, everyone I'm a guy working on IA64 with gcc version 4.1.1, and I need to do some instrumentation to do information flow tracking. Instrumentation is insert after register allocation and before the second scheduling, I suppose gcc will automatic maintain data flow, and it seems to be except

scheduling problem-a more detailed explain

Hi, I'm working on IA64 with GCC-4.1.1; what I do is to instrument some sensitive instructions (e.g. memory access) to do information flow tracking. As I insert the instrumentation after register allocation, I need to allocate general registers and predicates myself; for corner cases in

Scheduling problem - A more detailed explain

Hi, I'm working on IA64 with GCC-4.1.1; what I do is to instrument some sensitive instructions (e.g. memory access) to do information flow tracking. As I insert the instrumentation after register allocation, I need to allocate general registers and predicates myself; for corner cases in

Re: Scheduling problem - A more detailed explain

Ô¬Á¢Íþ wrote: So, my question becomes clear: How to solve this problem by making GCC knows the data dependencies between mov X = pr (or mov pr = X, -1) and other usage of a specific predicate register (e.g. p6, p7)? We already have support for these move instructions. See the movdi_internal

Re: Scheduling problem - A more detailed explain

rws_access_reg should be handling this correctly. It uses HARD_REGNO_NREGS to get the number of regs referred to by a reg rtl. So it should return 64 in this case, and then it will iterate over all 64-bit PR regs when checking for a dependency. I have found HARD_REGNO_NREGS in ia64.h #define

gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c fails on IA64 (modulo scheduling problem)

I noticed that gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c is failing on my IA64 Linux and HP-UX platforms. The failure is: x.c: In function 'foo': x.c:25: internal compiler error: in gen_sub2_insn, at optabs.c:4640 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See

Re: gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c fails on IA64 (modulo scheduling problem)

Steve Ellcey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I noticed that gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c is failing on my IA64 Linux and HP-UX platforms. The failure is: x.c: In function 'foo': x.c:25: internal compiler error: in gen_sub2_insn, at optabs.c:4640 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed

Re: gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c fails on IA64 (modulo scheduling problem)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/08/2007 03:19:48: I noticed that gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c is failing on my IA64 Linux and HP-UX platforms. The failure is: x.c: In function 'foo': x.c:25: internal compiler error: in gen_sub2_insn, at optabs.c:4640 Please submit a full bug report, with