On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:15 AM
So revised review is ok for the trunk :-)
Committed.
Hi Thomas,
The newly introduced test failed on
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
2015-04-15 Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudho...@arm.com
Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
* cprop.c (cprop_reg_p): New.
(hash_scan_set): Use above function to check if register can be
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:15 AM
So revised review is ok for the trunk :-)
Committed.
Best regards,
Thomas
On 04/16/2015 02:43 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:48 PM
I know there were several followups between Steven and yourself.
With
stage1 now open, can you post a final version and do a final
bootstrap/test with it?
Here is
On 04/23/2015 09:10 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:59 AM
Hi Jeff,
+
+static bool
+cprop_reg_p (const_rtx x)
+{
+ return REG_P (x) !HARD_REGISTER_P (x);
+}
How about instead this move to a more visible location
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:59 AM
Hi Jeff,
+
+static bool
+cprop_reg_p (const_rtx x)
+{
+ return REG_P (x) !HARD_REGISTER_P (x);
+}
How about instead this move to a more visible location (perhaps a macro
in regs.h or an inline
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:48 PM
I know there were several followups between Steven and yourself.
With
stage1 now open, can you post a final version and do a final
bootstrap/test with it?
Here is what came out of our discussion with Steven:
The
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:48 PM
Thomas,
I know there were several followups between Steven and yourself.
With
stage1 now open, can you post a final version and do a final
bootstrap/test with it?
Sure, I'm testing it right now. Sorry for not
On 02/16/2015 03:26 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Hi,
The RTL cprop pass in GCC operates by doing a local constant/copy propagation
first and then a global one. In the local one, if a constant cannot be
propagated (eg. due to constraints of the destination instruction) a copy
propagation is
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
FYI testing your patch with the one cprop_reg_p negated as said in my
previous email shows no regression on arm-none-eabi cross-compiler
targeting Cortex-M3. Testing for x86_64 is
From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:stevenb@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 8:14 PM
I put the cprop_reg_p check there instead of !HARD_REGISTER_P
because
I like to be able to quickly find all places where a similar check is
performed. The check is whether the reg is something that
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
What about the cprop_reg_p that needs to be negated? Did I miss something
that makes it ok?
You didn't miss anything. I sent the wrong patch. The one I tested on
ppc64 also has the condition reversed:
@@ -1328,9 +1329,8 @@
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
- else if (REG_P (src)
- REGNO (src) = FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER
- REGNO (src) != regno)
- {
- if (try_replace_reg (reg_used, src, insn))
+ else if (src_reg REG_P (src_reg)
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
I noticed in do_local_cprop you replace = FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER by
cprop_reg_p without removing the REG_P as well.
Sorry, I missed the parenthesis. REG_P needs indeed to be kept. I'd
Hi Steven,
From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:stevenb@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:54 PM
What I meant, is that I believe the tests are already done in
hash_scan_set and should be redundant in cprop_insn (i.e. the test can
be replaced with gcc_[checking_]assert).
Ok.
I've
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Sorry, I missed the parenthesis. REG_P needs indeed to be kept. I'd be
tempted to use !HARD_REGISTER_P instead since REG_P is already
checked but I don't mind either way.
I put the cprop_reg_p check there instead of !HARD_REGISTER_P
Ping?
From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Preud'homme
[SNIP]
Likewise for the REG_P and = FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER tests here
(with
the equivalent and IMHO preferable HARD_REGISTER_P test in
find_avail_set()).
I'm not sure
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
/* Subroutine of cprop_insn that tries to propagate constants into
@@ -1044,40 +1042,41 @@ cprop_insn (rtx_insn *insn)
- /* Constant propagation. */
- if (cprop_constant_p (src))
- {
- if
From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:stevenb@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:19 AM
To: Thomas Preud'homme
Cc: GCC Patches; Richard Biener
Subject: Re: [PATCH, GCC, stage1] Fallback to copy-prop if constant-prop
not possible
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
Hi,
The RTL cprop pass in GCC operates by doing a local constant/copy propagation
first and then a global one. In the local one, if a constant cannot be
propagated (eg. due to constraints of the destination instruction) a copy
propagation is done instead. However, at the global level copy
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Hi,
The RTL cprop pass in GCC operates by doing a local constant/copy
propagation first and then a global one. In the local one, if a constant
cannot be propagated (eg. due to constraints of the destination
instruction) a copy propagation
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
thomas.preudho...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
The RTL cprop pass in GCC operates by doing a local constant/copy propagation
first and then a global one. In the local one, if a constant cannot be
propagated (eg. due to constraints of the
22 matches
Mail list logo
