[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-03-04 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|39302 | OtherBugsDependingO||39363

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-03-04 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #14 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-05 00:32 --- My combined patch is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00250.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-20 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 23:01 --- Created an attachment (id=17155) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17155action=view) Throttle PRE, hookize SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES This is the patch I have in my local tree (bootstrappedtested on

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-15 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 11:36 --- (In reply to comment #11) P.S.: Another feature that we could look at is the number of times an input ssa name is used. If it is used more than once, we cannot rely on the original ssa name to go away, and hence

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-14 Thread Joey dot ye at intel dot com
--- Comment #7 from Joey dot ye at intel dot com 2009-01-14 10:08 --- (In reply to comment #5) Joern, re. comment #4, Richi refers to my patch to enable PRE at -Os, see [1]. An extension to this patch that we tested on x86 machines, is to disable PRE for scalar integer registers,

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-14 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 10:54 --- Re comment #7 Those patches are just proof-of-concept, and wouldn't actually help without additional changes in tree-ssa-pre.c. If you want, I can make the patches apply and work properly, and send them to you to

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-14 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 18:47 --- I think the disregard for conditional execution opportunities and the assumption that phi nodes have no execution cost are two separate issues. I'd like to address the latter first, because it causes exponential

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-14 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-01-14 20:51 --- Subject: Re: huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01 On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: I think the disregard for conditional execution opportunities and the assumption that phi nodes

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-14 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-14 22:06 --- (In reply to comment #10) You would completely underestimate the optimization opportunities PRE unleashes. Well, at least for partial-partial-RE, as mentioned before in PR38401, benchmarks indicate that we'd

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-10 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-10 16:10 --- (In reply to comment #5) Joern, re. comment #4, Richi refers to my patch to enable PRE at -Os, see [1]. An extension to this patch that we tested on x86 machines, is to disable PRE for scalar integer

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-09 15:55 --- Testcase? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-09 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-09 16:39 --- (In reply to comment #1) Testcase? Unfortunately, the EEMBC benchmarks are not freely redistributable. See http://www.eembc.org . I'm not sure yet which parts of the benchmark are intrinsic to the problem and

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-09 Thread amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-09 17:34 --- (In reply to comment #1) Testcase? Ok, I now have a testcase that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike fbital. About the only characteristic it shares with fbital is that it has a loop which provides

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-09 17:59 --- It's indeed partial-PRE that performs these insertions. Steven has some patches to tune down regular insertion that may also apply to partial insertion. See also PR38401. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

2009-01-09 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-09 20:55 --- Joern, re. comment #4, Richi refers to my patch to enable PRE at -Os, see [1]. An extension to this patch that we tested on x86 machines, is to disable PRE for scalar integer registers, via SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES.