Hi Richard,
I have a patch for PR43864. The patch adds a gimple level duplicate block
cleanup. The patch has been bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64, and
reg-tested on ARM. The size impact on ARM for spec2000 is shown in the following
table (%, lower is better).
none
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a patch for PR43864. The patch adds a gimple level duplicate block
> cleanup. The patch has been bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64, and
> reg-tested on ARM. The size impact on ARM for spec2000 is shown in the
> foll
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I have a patch for PR43864. The patch adds a gimple level duplicate block
>> cleanup. The patch has been bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64, and
>> reg-tested on
Hi Richard,
thanks for the review.
On 06/08/2011 11:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I have a patch for PR43864. The patch adds a gimple level duplicate block
>> cleanup. The patch has been bootstrapped and reg-tested on x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/08/11 03:42, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I have a patch for PR43864. The patch adds a gimple level duplicate block
> cleanup. The patch has been bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64, and
> reg-tested on ARM. The size impact on ARM for
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> thanks for the review.
>
> On 06/08/2011 11:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> I have a patch for PR43864. The patch adds a gimple level duplicate blo
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> here's a new version of the pass. I attempted to address as much as possible
> your comments. The pass was bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
>
> On 06/14/2011 05:01 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. Ok for trunk (after ARM testing)?
+static int
+same_succ_equal (const void *ve1, const void *ve2)
+{
...
+ if (bitmap_bit_p (e1->bbs, ENTRY_BLOCK)
+ || bitmap_bit_p (e1->bbs, EXIT_BLOCK)
+ |
On 07/22/2011 05:36 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> That said - I'm reasonably happy with the pass now, but it's rather large
> (this review took 40min again ...) so I appreciate a second look from
> somebody else.
>
Ian,
Do you have a moment to give a second look to a gimple CFG optimization? Th
Tom de Vries writes:
> Do you have a moment to give a second look to a gimple CFG optimization? The
> optimization removes duplicate basic blocks and reduces code size by 1-2%.
>
> The latest patch is posted at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01602.html.
I'm not really the best
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Tom de Vries writes:
>
>> Do you have a moment to give a second look to a gimple CFG optimization? The
>> optimization removes duplicate basic blocks and reduces code size by 1-2%.
>>
>> The latest patch is posted at
>> http://gcc.gnu.or
On 06/08/2011 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I'll send the patch with the testcases in a separate email.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
- Tom
2011-06-08 Tom de Vries
PR middle-end/43864
* gcc.dg/pr43864.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr43864-2.c: New test.
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg
Hi Ian,
In the following 2 messages I have posted a gimple level duplicate block cleanup
pass.
Implementation: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01602.html
Test cases: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01603.html
The pass reduces x864_64-stage3-cc1 text size with 1.7%,
Updated version.
On 06/08/2011 11:45 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>
>> I'll send the patch with the testcases in a separate email.
>
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
- Tom
2011-07-17 Tom de Vries
PR middle-end/43864
* gcc.dg/fold-compare-2.c (
On 07/17/2011 08:33 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Updated version.
>
> On 06/08/2011 11:45 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 06/08/2011 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> I'll send the patch with the testcases in a separate email.
>>
>
2 extra testcases added.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
- Tom
2011-08-19
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 07/17/2011 08:33 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Updated version.
>>
>> On 06/08/2011 11:45 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2011 11:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
I'll send the patch with the testcases in a separate email.
>>>
>>
>
> 2
16 matches
Mail list logo
