On 06/01/2015 06:26 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-05-29 1:15 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
Right, but you're blindly propagating. The right thing to do is look at
some kind of metric to estimate when it's profitable to propagate the
constant back in vs leave it hoisted out.
No, the
Ping
2015-06-01 15:26 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
2015-05-29 1:15 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
Right, but you're blindly propagating. The right thing to do is look at
some kind of metric to estimate when it's profitable to propagate the
constant back in vs leave
2015-05-29 1:15 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
Right, but you're blindly propagating. The right thing to do is look at
some kind of metric to estimate when it's profitable to propagate the
constant back in vs leave it hoisted out.
No, the patch is not to blindly propagate but to let
On 05/05/2015 05:05 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-04-21 8:52 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 04/17/2015 02:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 15 Apr 14:07, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-04-14 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ilya
Ping
2015-05-05 14:05 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com:
2015-04-21 8:52 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 04/17/2015 02:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 15 Apr 14:07, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-04-14 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard
2015-04-21 8:52 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 04/17/2015 02:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 15 Apr 14:07, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-04-14 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com writes:
This
On 04/17/2015 02:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On 15 Apr 14:07, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-04-14 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com writes:
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if
On 15 Apr 14:07, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2015-04-14 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com writes:
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if propagated
value is a constant to be
2015-04-14 8:22 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law l...@redhat.com:
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com writes:
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if propagated
value is a constant to be used in address operand. Bootstrapped and
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com writes:
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if propagated
value is a constant to be used in address operand. Bootstrapped and
tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk or stage
On 03/15/2015 02:30 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com writes:
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if propagated
value is a constant to be used in address operand. Bootstrapped and
tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk or stage
Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com writes:
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if propagated
value is a constant to be used in address operand. Bootstrapped and
tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk or stage 1?
Is it necessary for this to be a target hook?
On 10 Mar 18:00, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if propagated value
is a constant to be used in address operand. Bootstrapped and tested on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk or stage 1?
Thanks,
Ilya
Updated ChangeLog and test.
Hi,
This patch allows propagation of loop invariants for i386 if propagated value
is a constant to be used in address operand. Bootstrapped and tested on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk or stage 1?
Thanks,
Ilya
--
gcc/
2015-03-10 Ilya Enkovich ilya.enkov...@intel.com
PR
14 matches
Mail list logo
