--- Comment #18 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 09:48
---
Subject: Bug 44423
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 15 09:48:39 2010
New Revision: 160775
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160775
Log:
2010-06-15 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR
--- Comment #19 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-15 10:04
---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:39
---
(In reply to comment #14)
SSE performance is fine again, thanks a lot!
One more question, if that's OK...
Depending on ARRSZ the testcase uses wildly varying amounts of CPU time; it's
about half a second for
--- Comment #16 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2010-06-14
12:46 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
I have found the problem in the meantime ... it's my mistake, sorry about the
noise :(
The problem is that I did not explicitly zero the arrays in main(), so they
apparently
--- Comment #17 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-14 12:50
---
OK, I did not put much effort into my thinking about it :-)
Yes, the testcase is fine as it is.
I'm not testing the patch on the 4.5 branch and will commit it today
if everything goes fine.
--
--- Comment #11 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 09:02
---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
I don't think you need flow-sensitivity.
Basically when you have only aggregate uses (as in this case)
Vectors are
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 09:05
---
(In reply to comment #11)
D.2464.m[0] = D.2473_20;
D.2464.m[1] = D.2472_19;
D.2464.m[2] = D.2471_18;
*b_1(D) = D.2464;
D.2464 will be dead after scalarization.
If D.2464 was larger than
--- Comment #13 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 11:20
---
Subject: Bug 44423
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Jun 9 11:20:03 2010
New Revision: 160462
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=160462
Log:
2010-06-09 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR
--- Comment #14 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2010-06-09
12:06 ---
SSE performance is fine again, thanks a lot!
One more question, if that's OK...
Depending on ARRSZ the testcase uses wildly varying amounts of CPU time; it's
about half a second for ARRSZ=1024, but almost
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-08 13:16 ---
Mine
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #5 from martin at mpa-garching dot mpg dot de 2010-06-08 13:54
---
(In reply to comment #2)
We have (4.4):
bb 2:
va.f[0] = a-r;
va.f[1] = a-g;
va.f[2] = a-b;
va.f[3] = 0.0;
pretmp.40 = va.v;
ivtmp.61 = 0;
[...]
Could you please tell me the compiler
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-08 14:02 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #2)
We have (4.4):
bb 2:
va.f[0] = a-r;
va.f[1] = a-g;
va.f[2] = a-b;
va.f[3] = 0.0;
pretmp.40 = va.v;
ivtmp.61 = 0;
[...]
Could
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-08 14:29 ---
I don't think I can fix this bug in its most general form without
doing some flow-sensitive decisions (which can be difficult for
aggregates) and without causing PR 43846 again. (Aggregate
copy-propagation and
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-08 14:50 ---
I don't think you need flow-sensitivity.
Basically when you have only aggregate uses (as in this case) then you only
want to scalarize if the destination of the use is scalarized as well
(to be able to copyprop out
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-08 15:00 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I don't think you need flow-sensitivity.
Basically when you have only aggregate uses (as in this case)
Vectors are considered scalars in GCC. That is why the solutions
described above
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-08 15:11
---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
I don't think you need flow-sensitivity.
Basically when you have only aggregate uses (as in this case)
Vectors are considered scalars in GCC. That is
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-05 10:56 ---
Ok. Fact is that no pass can move invariant store/load pairs. But that's
pre-existing - the main issue is that the new SRA implementation ends up
rematerializing the stores inside the loop!
Diff of pre-esra vs.
17 matches
Mail list logo
