Looks good.
David
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> In AutoFDO, we early-inline callsites that was inlined in profiling
> runs regardless of the size limit. With this change, the existing
> ipa-inline tunings for AutoFDO is unnecessary: it's fine to just use
> the traditional
In AutoFDO, we early-inline callsites that was inlined in profiling
runs regardless of the size limit. With this change, the existing
ipa-inline tunings for AutoFDO is unnecessary: it's fine to just use
the traditional FDO based heuristic. This patch cleans up the original
tunings and make it easie
Hello,
This just removes one unused function, and moves two functions from
emit-rtl.c to reorg.c which is the only place where they're used.
Will commit in a few days, barring objections.
Ciao!
Steven
* rtl.h (next_label, skip_consecutive_labels, link_cc0_insns):
Remove prototy
>> in principle I think your idea to tighten up the type check by
>> symmetrizing it is ok.
>
> I actually kind of copied it from the proc-pointer assignment check, which
> does the same.
Btw, I think you refer to this piece of code in expr.c
(gfc_check_pointer_assign), right?
if (!gfc_com
>>> However, I'm not sure if the place where you do it is the most
>>> preferable: I think it should rather go inside of
>>> check_dummy_characteristics (since any check for the dummy
>>> characteristics should include the 'strict' type check, and not only a
>>> check of type compatibility, cf. F08
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> /* If we are partitioning hot/cold basic blocks, we don't want to
> mess up unconditional or indirect jumps that cross between hot
> and cold sections.
>
> Basic block partitioning may result in some jumps that appear to
>
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >
>> > BTW2: We badly need to figure out a way to create test cases for FDO... :-(
>>
>> Yes. I had tried testing awhile back with the gcc regression tests and
>> enabling -freorder-blocks-and-partition, but none of the issues I was
>> having
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> Here there was a block that happened to be laid out at the very start
>> of the cold section (it was jumped to from elsewhere, not reached via
>> fall through from its layout predece
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Once -freorder-blocks-and-partition actually works, we should enable it by
> > default with -fprofile-generate (I recall I was trying to do that once, but
> > I am not sure what was outcome back then and why it did not happen).
> > That shou
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Once -freorder-blocks-and-partition actually works, we should enable it by
> default with -fprofile-generate (I recall I was trying to do that once, but
> I am not sure what was outcome back then and why it did not happen).
> That should get it
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Here there was a block that happened to be laid out at the very start
> of the cold section (it was jumped to from elsewhere, not reached via
> fall through from its layout predecessor). Thus it was preceded by a
> switch section note, which
> >But
> >glancing over the the dumps, I see many of them just have different
> >name
> >spaces. Do we even attempt to merge namespace_decl? How types from
> >same
> >namespaces in different units are supposed to match?
> >
> We do not merge namespace decls, which is likely the issue here. My
> i
> >
> > BTW2: We badly need to figure out a way to create test cases for FDO... :-(
>
> Yes. I had tried testing awhile back with the gcc regression tests and
> enabling -freorder-blocks-and-partition, but none of the issues I was
> having with larger benchmarks fired. I think there just aren't en
Second try.
I removed the fold_single_bit_test thing (I thought I'd handle it, so I
started by the easy part, and never did the rest).
Adapting invert_truthvalue_loc for vectors, I thought: calling
fold_truth_not_expr and build1 if it fails is just the same as
fold_build1. Except that it was
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 09:05:52AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Seems that we ought to have a testcase, even though it probably
> > means scanning the tree dumps to pick up the undefined behaviour.
> > Approved with a testcase.
>
> I have added lots of testcases recently, for rotation by zero p
Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> The existing check should work ok with lto. If not then we should
>figure out why we do not merge the main variants properly.
>Hmm, adding:
>Index: tree.c
>===
>--- tree.c (revision 198796)
>+++ tree.c
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 05:18:34PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 08:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >Our rotate expansion if rotate optab isn't present for the respective
> >mode looks unsafe for rotations by variable count if that count could
> >be 0, because then it invokes righ
17 matches
Mail list logo
