https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #58 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4ba4165d66b18d7c5b8af02ecdf38bfa0690c106
commit r15-4017-g4ba4165d66b18d7c5b8af02ecdf38bfa0690c106
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #57 from Andrew Macleod ---
FWIW, on my last run, enabling early VRP sped up my -O1 compilation by a fair
amount. total compilation dropped from 480 seconds to 380 seconds...
It took 2.5 seconds to run, and im going to guess might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #56 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:942bbb2357656019caa3f8ebd2d23b09222f039a
commit r15-3896-g942bbb2357656019caa3f8ebd2d23b09222f039a
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #55 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #50)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Trunk at -O1:
> >
> > dominator optimization : 495.14 ( 82%) 0.20 ( 5%) 495.44 (
> > 81%)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #54 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9b7626383822799d60ea3c62e62e700f16337cd6
commit r15-3860-g9b7626383822799d60ea3c62e62e700f16337cd6
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs writes:
>> Have you tried the patch in comment 22? That should reduce the time in
>> DOM by 23%.
>
> I thought that was already applied ...?
No. I wanted to investigate the 3 missing threads, but I think the
patch can go in as is. I'll be away for a few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #53 from aldy at quesejoda dot com ---
rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs writes:
>> Have you tried the patch in comment 22? That should reduce the time in
>> DOM by 23%.
>
> I thought that was already applied ...?
No. I want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #52 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, aldy at quesejoda dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
>
> --- Comment #51 from aldy at quesejoda dot com ---
> "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #51 from aldy at quesejoda dot com ---
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
>
> --- Comment #50 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
>
> --- Comment #50 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>> Trunk at -O1:
>>
>> dominator optimization : 495.14 ( 82%) 0.20 ( 5%) 495.44 (
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #50 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Trunk at -O1:
>
> dominator optimization : 495.14 ( 82%) 0.20 ( 5%) 495.44 (
> 81%) 113M ( 5%)
Compared to that we're now at the following
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #49 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc141b56b367b3d81c1b590e22ae174f1e013009
commit r15-3854-gcc141b56b367b3d81c1b590e22ae174f1e013009
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #48 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:caf3fe7880e62692da45489dc5bcae069c1555c8
commit r15-3852-gcaf3fe7880e62692da45489dc5bcae069c1555c8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #47 from Sam James ---
> gcc.exe (x86_64-win32-sjlj-rev0, Built by MinGW-W64 project) 5.1.0
GCC 5 is long EOL, unfortunately.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #46 from jeremy rutman ---
I don't know if this is relevant but a certain gcc I was using lately seems to
do fine compiling one of the autogenerated files in question (an AES128 encrypt
file) , but quits unexpectedly when I try compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #45 from Richard Biener ---
I noticed that
get_bitmask_from_range(tree_node*, generic_wide_int const&,
generic_wide_int const&)
is quite high on the profile accumulating profile hits on
wide_int_storage::operator=(wide_int_storage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #44 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a795b3a5b6a0d8b4b4f38a66ab9782aabead92e
commit r15-3824-g9a795b3a5b6a0d8b4b4f38a66ab9782aabead92e
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #43 from Richard Biener ---
Thanks for the work sofar. It seems the back_jt_path_registry::update_cfg
has a "dead" guard against un-adjust_paths_after_duplication paths with
its tracking visited_starting_edges, so for the purpose of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #42 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9dfe8dea31bf5c56aa7798a0905707faf9e7ec4
commit r15-3818-gf9dfe8dea31bf5c56aa7798a0905707faf9e7ec4
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #41 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 59181
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59181&action=edit
unrtested patch sorting threadable paths
The performance improvement with this patch is:
** mainline
Time v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #40 from Aldy Hernandez ---
For the record, I still think adjust_paths_after_duplication() isn't giving us
much for all the hassle it's causing.
I compared the number of threaded paths with and without it and the difference
is:
* m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #39 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I'm going to step away from this PR for a few weeks so I'll do a brain dump on
where I am, just in case someone wants to poke at it some more.
This problem in adjust_paths_after_duplication() boils down t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #38 from aldy at quesejoda dot com ---
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 1:19 PM rguenther at suse dot de <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
>
> --- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #37 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
>
> --- Comment #36 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #36 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #33)
> Can we just sort m_paths after the path entry BB and fix the lookup that way?
This seemed promising, especially because the adjust_paths_after_duplication()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #35 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> Btw, if we simply remove the call to that function, with -O1
> -fenable-tree-thread1 I see:
>
> backwards jump threading : 14.36 ( 3%) 0.39 (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Macleod ---
Btw, if we simply remove the call to that function, with -O1
-fenable-tree-thread1 I see:
backwards jump threading : 14.36 ( 3%) 0.39 ( 5%) 14.68 ( 3%)
238M ( 9%)
which is a notable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
Can we just sort m_paths after the path entry BB and fix the lookup that way?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #31)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #30)
> > On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> > > I tried running valgrind, which died, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
>
> --- Comment #29 from Andrew Macleod ---
> Huh. Do we calculate *all* paths ahead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #29 from Andrew Macleod ---
Huh. Do we calculate *all* paths ahead of time?
I tried running valgrind, which died, but up to that point it showed 77% of the
time spend in the body of
back_jt_path_registry::adjust_paths_after_duplica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Just to clarify what the "handcuffs" in the backwards threader do and what
they don't. There is no limit on the number of cond/switch stmts (thus
basic-blocks) we consider as the exit of paths, but for ea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #26)
>
> With -O1 -fenable-tree-thread1 (no threadfull):
> dominator optimization : 127.76 ( 7%) 0.57 ( 7%) 128.58 (
> 7%) 236M ( 9%)
> back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #26 from Aldy Hernandez ---
I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the *backwards* threader that
causes us to blow up, even without fully resolving conditions with a global
ranger.
I tried running at -O1 and -fenable-tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #25 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #22)
> Created attachment 59001 [details]
> reduce recursion in forward threader (patch in testing)
Avoiding unnecessary recursion in simplify_control_stmt_conditi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> Most of the -O1 dom time is spent in threading using path ranger to simplify
> the JT conditions. That in turn does (for each threading from scratch?)
> GOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #22)
> Created attachment 59001 [details]
> reduce recursion in forward threader (patch in testing)
>
> As suggested by Richard in PR116166.
Should've been more v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #22 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 59001
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59001&action=edit
reduce recursion in forward threader (patch in testing)
As suggested by Richard in PR116166.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #20)
> I did an -O2 run after those patches.
>
> Highlights:
>
> tree SSA incremental : 117.74 ( 1%) 0.63 ( 3%) 120.37 (
> 1%) 1049M ( 24%)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Macleod ---
I did an -O2 run after those patches.
Highlights:
tree SSA incremental : 117.74 ( 1%) 0.63 ( 3%) 120.37 ( 1%)
1049M ( 24%)
dominator optimization : 680.49 ( 5%) 0.65
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to GCC Commits from comment #17)
> The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e4da946c4263a4c89d5fc365b3c97ae244c5018
>
> commit r15-2858-g9e4da946c4263a4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/GaloisIn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9e4da946c4263a4c89d5fc365b3c97ae244c5018
commit r15-2858-g9e4da946c4263a4c89d5fc365b3c97ae244c5018
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ce3874b3c2fdd76f506005cb1171a732af7c807
commit r15-2857-g5ce3874b3c2fdd76f506005cb1171a732af7c807
Author: Andrew MacLeod
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase is a bit unwieldly for developing a fix - I wonder if it's
possible to auto-generate smaller testcases with the same structure?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855
--- Comment #14 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:634eae5ec3f3af2c4f6221d3ed2cf78d7f5c47f0
commit r15-2312-g634eae5ec3f3af2c4f6221d3ed2cf78d7f5c47f0
Author: Sam James
Date: Tue
47 matches
Mail list logo
