On 08/30/2017 10:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> Yes, sorry for the missing entries. Fixed and installed as r251412.
>> Hopefully fall out will be small.
>
> there's
>
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp104.c scan-tree-dump-times switchlower
> "switch" 1
>
> everywhere, it seems. gc
Hi Martin,
> Yes, sorry for the missing entries. Fixed and installed as r251412.
> Hopefully fall out will be small.
there's
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp104.c scan-tree-dump-times switchlower "switch" 1
everywhere, it seems. gcc.log has
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp104.c: dump file does not exist
F
On 08/29/2017 01:42 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 08/18/2017 12:25 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 08/18/2017 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Bie
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/18/2017 12:25 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 08/18/2017 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hmm, but the existing "lowering" pa
On 08/18/2017 12:25 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/18/2017 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hmm, but the existing "lowering" part is called from the
switch-conversion pass. So
On 08/18/2017 11:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Hmm, but the existing "lowering" part is called from the
>>> switch-conversion pass. So
>>> I'm not sure a new file is good.
>>
>> Good, I'm no
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Hmm, but the existing "lowering" part is called from the
>> switch-conversion pass. So
>> I'm not sure a new file is good.
>
> Good, I'm not against having that in a single file. So new version
On 08/14/2017 10:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Hmm, but the existing "lowering" part is called from the
> switch-conversion pass. So
> I'm not sure a new file is good.
Good, I'm not against having that in a single file. So new version of the patch
does that.
Patch can bootstrap on ppc64le-redha
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 01:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
>>> stmt.c that
>>> is responsible for switch
On 08/02/2017 01:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
>> stmt.c that
>> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
>> the cod
On 08/03/2017 03:27 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> I think the main reason for not doing it early is the benefit is small
>> (unless it is GIMPLE optimizations triggering)
>
> Agree.
>
>> and we can't get rid of
>> switches completely because
On 08/03/2017 02:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
>> stmt.c that
>> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
>> the cod
On 08/03/2017 03:02 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On 08/02/2017 01:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
stmt.c that
is responsible for switch expa
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think the main reason for not doing it early is the benefit is small
> (unless it is GIMPLE optimizations triggering)
Agree.
> and we can't get rid of
> switches completely because we eventually have to support casei RTL expansion.
> (and
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
> >> stmt.c that
> >> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
>> stmt.c that
>> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
>
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
> stmt.c that
> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
> the code
> to expand gswitch statements on tree level. Current
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
>> stmt.c that
>> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
>>
> On 08/02/2017 01:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
> >> stmt.c that
> >> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to
> >>
On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 13:20 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current
> code in stmt.c that
> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to
> convert the code
> to expand gswitch statements on tree level. Curre
On 08/02/2017 01:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
>> stmt.c that
>> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
>> the cod
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
> stmt.c that
> is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
> the code
> to expand gswitch statements on tree level. Curren
Hello.
After some discussions with Honza, I've decided to convert current code in
stmt.c that
is responsible for switch expansion. More precisely, I would like to convert
the code
to expand gswitch statements on tree level. Currently the newly created pass is
executed
at the end of tree optimiz
23 matches
Mail list logo
