Re: [RFC][PR82479] missing popcount builtin detection

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>

Re: [RFC][PR82479] missing popcount builtin detection

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah > wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> On 1 February 2018 at 23:21, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On

Re: Patch ping (Re: [PATCH PR82965/PR83991]Fix invalid profile count in vectorization peeling)

Ping^2 Thanks, bin On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > Honza, do you think you could have a look at this P1 fix? > > Thanks. > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:03:51AM +, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch fixes invalid profile count information

Re: [PATCH BACKPORT]Backport r254778 and test case in r244815 to GCC6

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> HI, >> This patch backports r254778 and test case in r244815 to GCC6. Bootstrap and >> test on x86_64. Is it OK? > > Ok. Retested and

Re: [PATCH PR82604]Fix regression in ftree-parallelize-loops

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > This patch is supposed to fix regression caused by loop distribution when > ftree-parallelize-loops. The reason is distributed memset call can't be > understood/analyzed in data reference analysis, as a result, parloop

Re: [PATCH PR81740]Enforce dependence check for outer loop vectorization

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Hi, >>>

Re: [PATCH PR81740]Enforce dependence check for outer loop vectorization

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> where *unroll is similar to *max_vf I think. dist_v[0] is the innermost >> loop. > > [0] is always outermost loop. > >> The vectorizer does way more complicated things

Re: [PATCH PR81740]Enforce dependence check for outer loop vectorization

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec

Re: [PATCH PR81740]Enforce dependence check for outer loop vectorization

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>&g

Re: [PATCH PR81740]Enforce dependence check for outer loop vectorization

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> As explained in the PR, given below test case: >> int a[8][10] = { [2][5] = 4 }, c; >> >> int >> main () >> { >> short b; >>

Re: [PATCH GCC]More conservative interchanging small loops with const initialized simple reduction

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH GCC]More conservative interchanging small loops with const initialized simple reduction

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri,

Re: [PATCH GCC]More conservative interchanging small loops with const initialized simple reduction

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH GCC]More conservative interchanging small loops with const initialized simple reduction

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This simple patch makes interchange even more conservative for small loops >> with constant initialized simple reduction. >> The

Re: [PATCH] Fix vectorizer part of PR81303

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> > >> &

Re: [PATCH] Fix vectorizer part of PR81303

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> > >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix vectorizer part of PR81303

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> On 8 December 2017 at 09:07, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> > >> &

Re: [PATCH] Fix vectorizer part of PR81303

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following fixes a vectorization issue that appears when trying > to vectorize the bwaves mat_times_vec kernel after interchange was > performed by the interchange pass. That interchange inserts the > following code

Re: [PATCH GCC]Introduce loop interchange pass and enable it at -O3

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This is the overall loop interchange patch on gimple-linterchange branch. >> Note the new pass >> is enabled at -O3 level by

Re: [PATCH][gimple-interchange] Final cleanup stuff

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > This is my final sweep through the code doing cleanup on-the-fly. Hi, Thanks very much for all your help! > > I think the code is ready to go now (after you committed your changes). > > What I'd eventually like to see is

Re: [PATCH][gimple-interchange] Random cleanups

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On December 4, 2017 5:01:45 PM GMT+01:00, "Bin.Cheng" <amker.ch...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> >>wrote: &g

Re: [PATCH][gimple-interchange] Random cleanups

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > When skimming through the code I noticed the following (chatted on IRC > about parts of the changes). > > Bootstrap / regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > Will commit tomorrow unless you beat me to that. > >

Re: [PATCH][gimple-interchange] Add reduction validity check

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > I've noticed we perform FP reduction association without the required > checks for associative math. I've added > gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-interchange-1b.c to cover this. > > I also noticed we happily interchange a loop

Re: [PATCH][gimple-interchange] Add reduction validity check

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > I've noticed we perform FP reduction association without the required > checks for associative math. I've added > gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-interchange-1b.c to cover this. > > I also noticed we happily interchange a loop

Re: [PATCH][gimple-linterchange] Rewrite compute_access_stride

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > >> > This is the access stride computation change. Apart

Re: [PATCH][gimple-linterchange] Rewrite compute_access_stride

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > This is the access stride computation change. Apart from the > stride extraction I adjusted the cost model to handle non-constant > strides by checking if either is a multiple of the other and > simply fail

Re: [PATCH GCC][V2]A simple implementation of loop interchange

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> O

Re: [PATCH GCC][V2]A simple implementation of loop interchange

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This is updated patch with review comments resolved. Some explanation >> embedded below. >> >>> + >>> + iloop->nb_iterations =

Re: [PATCH GCC]Rename and make remove_dead_inserted_code a simple dce interface

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch renames remove_dead_inserted_code to simple_dce_from_worklist, >> moves it to tree-ssa-dce.c >> and makes it a simple

Re: [PATCH GCC][V2]A simple implementation of loop interchange

Nov 20, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gma >> il.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> >> > > wrote: &g

Re: [PATCH GCC]A simple implementation of loop interchange

Hi Richard, Thanks for reviewing. It's quite lot comment, I am trying to resolve it one by one. Here I have some questions as embedded. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmai

Re: Improve canonicalisation of TARGET_MEM_REFs

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> Richard Biener writes: >>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Richard Sandiford >>>

Re: Make ivopts handle calls to internal functions

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > ivopts previously treated pointer arguments to internal functions > like IFN_MASK_LOAD and IFN_MASK_STORE as normal gimple values. > This patch makes it treat them as addresses instead. This makes > a

Re: [PATCH GCC]A simple implementation of loop interchange

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> This is updated patch for loop interchange with review suggestions >> resolved. Changes are: >> 1) It does more light weight c

Re: [PATCH PR82726/PR70754][2/2]New fix by finding correct root reference in combined chains

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > <rep.dot@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 02:14:25PM +, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> Hmm, the patch

Re: [PATCH PR82726/PR70754][2/2]New fix by finding correct root reference in combined chains

Hmm, the patch... Thanks, bin On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> w

Re: [PATCH PR82726/PR70754][2/2]New fix by finding correct root reference in combined chains

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> As described in message of previous patch: >> >> This patch set fixes both PRs in the opposite way: Instead of find dominance >>

Re: [PATCH PR82776]Exploit more undefined pointer overflow behavior in loop niter analysis

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH PR82776]Exploit more undefined pointer overflow behavior in loop niter analysis

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH PR82776]Exploit more undefined pointer overflow behavior in loop niter analysis

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This is a simple patch exploiting more undefined pointer overflow behavior in >> loop niter analysis. Originally, it only supports

Re: Improve ivopts handling of forced scales

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > This patch improves the ivopts address cost calculcation for modes > in which an index must be scaled rather than unscaled. Previously > we would only try the scaled form if the unscaled form was valid. > >

Re: [PATCH GCC][2/3]Simplify ((A +- CST1 CMP A +- CST2)) for undefined overflow type

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bin Cheng wrote: > >> * match.pd (A +- CST1 CMP A +- CST2): New pattern. > > > Similarly, this has a very large overlap with "X + Z < Y + Z" transforms > already in match.pd. It may handle X -

Re: [PATCH GCC][1/3]Simplify (A + CST cmp A -> CST cmp zero) for undefined overflow type

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bin Cheng wrote: > >> * match.pd (A + CST cmp A -> CST cmp zero): New simplification >> for undefined overflow types in (A + CST CMP A -> A CMP' CST'). > > > Could you check if you

Re: [PATCH GCC][4/7]Choose exit edge/path when removing inner loop's exit statement

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 10/09/2017 03:34 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> Function generate_loops_for_partition chooses arbitrary path when >>> removing

Re: [PATCH GCC][7/7]Merge adjacent memset builtin partitions

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 P

Re: [PATCH GCC][7/7]Merge adjacent memset builtin partitions

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu,

Re: [PATCH GCC][7/7]Merge adjacent memset builtin partitions

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> This

Re: [PATCH GCC][7/7]Merge adjacent memset builtin partitions

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch merges adjacent memset builtin partitions if possible. It is >> a useful special case optimization transforming below

Re: [PATCH GCC][6/7]Support loop nest distribution for builtin partition

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch rewrites classification part of builtin partition so that nested >> builtin partitions are supported. With this

Re: [PATCH][GRAPHITE] Fix PR82451 (and PR82355 in a different way)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > >> > For PR82355 I introduced a fake dimension to IS

Re: [PATCH][GRAPHITE] Fix PR82451 (and PR82355 in a different way)

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > For PR82355 I introduced a fake dimension to ISL to allow CHRECs > having an evolution in a loop that isn't fully part of the SESE > region we are processing. That was easier than fending off those > CHRECs (without

Re: [PATCH GCC][5/7]Extend loop distribution for two-level innermost loop nest

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> For now distribution pass only handles the innermost loop. This patch >> extends the pass >> to cover two-level innermost loop nest.

Re: [PATCH GCC][3/7]Don't skip renaming PHIs in loop nest with only one inner loop

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> Function rename_variables_in_bb skips renaming PHI nodes in loop nest if the >> outer loop has only one inner loop. This breaks loop

Re: [PATCH PR82163/V2]New interface checking LCSSA for single loop

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:37:53AM +, Bin Cheng wrote: > >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c >> index d6ba305..6ad0b75 100644 >> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c >> +++

Re: [PATCH][GRAPHITE] More TLC

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> > >> > This simplifies canonicalize_loop_closed_ssa and does other minimal >> > TLC. It also adds a testcase I reduced from

Re: [PATCH GCC]A simple implementation of loop interchange

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH PR82163]Rewrite loop into lcssa form instantly

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> Current pcom implementation rewrites into lcssa form after all loops are >> transformed, this is >> not enough because unrolling

Re: [PATCH GCC]A simple implementation of loop interchange

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH GCC]A simple implementation of loop interchange

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch implements a simple loop interchange pass in GCC, as described by >> its comments: >> +/* This pass performs loop

Re: PR81635: Use chrecs to help find related data refs

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" <amker.ch...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> "Bin.C

Re: PR81635: Use chrecs to help find related data refs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" <amker.ch...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> "Bin.C

Re: PR81635: Use chrecs to help find related data refs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" <amker.ch...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> The first lo

Re: PR81635: Use chrecs to help find related data refs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > The first loop in the testcase regressed after my recent changes to > dr_analyze_innermost. Previously we would treat "i" as an iv even > for bb analysis and end up with: > >DR_BASE_ADDRESS: p or q >

Re: [PATCH PR81832]Skip copying loop header if inner loop is distributed

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" <amker.ch...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Richard Bie

Re: [PATCH PR81799]Fix ICE by forcing to is_gimple_val

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This patch fixes ICE reported in PR81799. It simply uses is_gimple_val >> rather than is_gimple_condexpr. >> Bootstap and test on

Re: [PATCH PR81228]Fixes ICE by adding LTGT in vec_cmp.

Ping. On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > This simple patch fixes the ICE by adding LTGT in vec_cmp > pattern. > I also modified the original test case into a compilation one since > -fno-wrapping-math > should not be used in general. > Bootstrap and

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR81719

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following improves niter analysis for range-based for loops > by handling ADDR_EXPR in expand_simple_operations. > > Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, testing in progress. > > Richard. > > 2017-08-08 Richard

Re: [PATCH GCC][5/5]Enable tree loop distribution at -O3 and above optimization levels.

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 06/07/2017 02:07 AM,

Re: [PATCH] Make mempcpy more optimal (PR middle-end/70140).

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > On 08/02/2017 11:45 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> With r250771, GCC failed to build glibc for arm/aarch64 linux cross >> toolchain: > > Hi. > > Sorry for the breakage, I accide

Re: [PATCH] Make mempcpy more optimal (PR middle-end/70140).

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 08/02/2017 09:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:13:40AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 08/01/2017 09:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 08:59:29AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:

Re: [PATCH PR81228]Fixes ICE by adding LTGT in vec_cmp.

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" <amker.ch...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Bin Cheng &

Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] optimize float immediate moves (2 /4) - HF/DF/SF mode.

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Tamar Christina wrote: >> >> Given review comment already pointed out big-endian issue and patch was >> updated to address it, I would expect reg-test on a big-endian target before >> applying patch, right? > > The patch spent 6 months in

Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] optimize float immediate moves (2 /4) - HF/DF/SF mode.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Tamar Christina wrote: > Hi all, > > Here's the re-spun patch. > Aside from the grouping of the split patterns it now also uses h register for > the fmov for HF when available, > otherwise it forces a literal load. > > Regression tested

Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] optimize float immediate moves (1 /4) - infrastructure.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Tamar Christina wrote: > Hi All, > > > This patch lays the ground work to fix the immediate moves for floats > to use a combination of mov, movi, fmov instead of ldr and adrp to load > float constants that fit within the 16-bit limit of

Re: [PATCH][GCC][AArch64] optimize float immediate moves (3 /4) - testsuite.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Tamar Christina wrote: > Hi, > > With the changes in the patches the testsuite had a minor update in the > assembler scan. > I've posted the patch but will assume it's OK based on the previous OK for > trunk and > the fact that this can

Re: [PATCH GCC]Make pointer overflow always undefined and remove the macro

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This is a followup patch to PR81388's fix. According to Richi, >> POINTER_TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED was added in -fstrict-overflow

Re: [PATCH GCC][4/4]Better handle store-stores chain if eliminated stores only store loop invariant

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> T

Re: [PATCH GCC][5/6]Record initialization statements and only insert it for valid chains

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>>

Re: [PATCH GCC][4/6]Simple patch skips single element component

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/12/2017 05:28 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This is a simple patch discarding simple element components earlier in >> predcom. >> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64, is it OK? >> >> Thanks, >> bin >> 2017-05-10 Bin

Re: [PATCH PR81228]Fixes ICE by adding LTGT in vec_cmp.

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: > "Bin.Cheng" <amker.ch...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Bin Cheng &

Re: [PATCH PR81228]Fixes ICE by adding LTGT in vec_cmp.

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Bin Cheng writes: >> Hi, >> This simple patch fixes the ICE by adding LTGT in >> vec_cmp pattern. >> I also modified the original test case into a compilation one since >>

Re: [PATCH] PR libstdc++/53984 handle exceptions in basic_istream::sentry

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 26/07/17 20:14 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> >> Hi again, >> >> On 26/07/2017 16:27, Paolo Carlini wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 26/07/2017 16:21, Andreas Schwab wrote: ERROR:

Re: [PATCH GCC][4/4]Better handle store-stores chain if eliminated stores only store loop invariant

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> O

Re: [PATCH GCC][4/4]Better handle store-stores chain if eliminated stores only store loop invariant

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> T

Re: [PATCH GCC][1/2]Feed bound computation to folder in loop split

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH GCC][3/4]Generalize dead store elimination (or store motion) across loop iterations in predcom

Ping^1. Thanks, bin On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >&

Re: [PATCH GCC][1/2]Feed bound computation to folder in loop split

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> But since definition of _197 isn't in current stmt sequence, call "o31 >> = do_valueize (valueize, o31)" will return NULL. As a result, it's &g

Re: [PATCH GCC][1/2]Feed bound computation to folder in loop split

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >>> For _123, we have >>> >>> /* (A +- CST1) +- CST2 -> A + CST3 >>> or >>> /* Associate (p +p off1) +p off

Re: [PATCH GCC][1/2]Feed bound computation to folder in loop split

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Bin.Cheng wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> That means we miss a

Re: [PATCH][1/n] Fix PR81303

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following is sth I noticed when looking at a way to fix PR81303. > We happily compute a runtime cost model threshold that executes the > vectorized variant even though no vector iteration takes place due > to the

Re: [PATCH AArch64]Fix ICE in cortex-a57 fma steering pass

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:15:04PM +, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> After change @236817, AArch64 backend could avoid unnecessary conversion >> instructions for register between different modes now. As a

Re: [PATCH PR81408]Turn TREE level unsafe loop optimizations warning to missed optimization message

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> I removed unsafe loop optimization on TREE level last year, so GCC doesn't >> do unsafe >> loop optimizations on TREE now. All

Re: [PATCH GCC][13/13]Distribute loop with loop versioning under runtime alias check

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 17 July 2017 at 12:06, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christophe Lyon >> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH GCC][13/13]Distribute loop with loop versioning under runtime alias check

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Bin, > > On 30 June 2017 at 12:43, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On We

Re: [PATCH GCC][13/13]Distribute loop with loop versioning under runtime alias check

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Bin, > > On 30 June 2017 at 12:43, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On We

Re: [PATCH GCC][4/4]Better handle store-stores chain if eliminated stores only store loop invariant

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > This is a followup patch better handling below case: > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) >{ > a[i] = 1; > a[i+2] = 2; >} > Instead of generating root variables by loading from memory and

Re: [PATCH GCC][3/4]Generalize dead store elimination (or store motion) across loop iterations in predcom

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>

Re: [PATCH GCC][2/2]Refine CFG and bound information for split loops

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 06/14/2017 07:08 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> Loop split currently generates below control flow graph for split loops: >> + >> + .-- guard1 --. >> + v v >> +

Re: [PATCH GCC8][33/33]Fix PR69710/PR68030 by reassociate vect base address and a simple CSE pass

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 04/18/2017 04:54 AM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> This is the same patch posted at >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02000.html, >> after rebase against this patch series. This patch was blocked because >>

Re: [PATCH GCC][3/4]Generalize dead store elimination (or store motion) across loop iterations in predcom

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> O

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >