Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

Hi Martin On 25/05/18 10:45, Martin Liška wrote: On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote: On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that. It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish. unfortunately, it

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote: > On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> > Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that. > It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish. unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue:

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 05/24/2018 02:28 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm going to install the patch so that I can carry on

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 05/21/2018 04:42 PM, Sudakshina Das wrote: On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that. It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish. unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue: * The switchlower ->

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

Hi Martin, > On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >>> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, > So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm > going to install the patch so that > I can carry on more complex

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 21/05/18 15:00, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that. It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish. unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue: * The switchlower -> switchlower1 renames in the dg-final* lines

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

Hi Martin, >>> Thanks for opened eyes, following patch will fix that. >>> It's quite obvious, I'll install it right after tests will finish. >> >> unfortunately, it didn't fix either issue: >> >> * The switchlower -> switchlower1 renames in the dg-final* lines >> (attached) are still

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 05/21/2018 01:18 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Martin, > >> On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> Hi Martin, >>> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm going to install the patch so that I can carry on more complex patches based on this

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

Hi Martin, > On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >>> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm >>> going to install the patch so that >>> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one. >> >> it seems you didn't properly test the

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 05/18/2018 03:55 PM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Martin, > >> So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm >> going to install the patch so that >> I can carry on more complex patches based on this one. > > it seems you didn't properly test the testsuite part: I see >

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

Hi Martin, > So the patch looks fine, only very very slightly binary is produced. I'm > going to install the patch so that > I can carry on more complex patches based on this one. it seems you didn't properly test the testsuite part: I see +UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/tree-prof/update-loopch.c

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 01/15/2018 12:22 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > Can you please post CSiBE numbers? Ideally throwing in gcc-3.4.6 numbers too? > > thanks, Hi. I've just retested the patch and looks fine. There are numbers of CSiBE. I'm sorry I don't have such old version of GCC:

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 10 January 2018 15:59:28 CET, "Martin Liška" wrote: >On 01/10/2018 02:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 01/10/2018 02:13 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > > Hello. > > Thank

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Hello. Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening.

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 01/09/2018 07:43 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello. >>> >>> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning >>> to do >>> follow-up of this patch that will include

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 09/20/2017 05:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > >> >> Hello. >> >> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning >> to do >> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and jump >> tables. >> Maybe that

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 20 September 2017 17:00:13 CEST, Jeff Law wrote: >On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > >> >> Hello. >> >> Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm >planning to do >> follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests >and

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 09/20/2017 01:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > > Hello. > > Thank you Jeff for very verbose explanation what's happening. I'm planning to > do > follow-up of this patch that will include clustering for bit-tests and jump > tables. > Maybe that will make aforementioned issues even more

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 09/16/2017 12:19 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/14/2017 06:17 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> Hello. >> >> As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be >> massive >> simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it >> includes >> VRP and DCE, which

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

On 09/14/2017 06:17 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > Hello. > > As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be > massive > simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it > includes > VRP and DCE, which we can for obvious reason do by our own. > >

[PATCH][RFC] Radically simplify emission of balanced tree for switch statements.

Hello. As mentioned at Cauldron 2017, second step in switch lowering should be massive simplification in code that does expansion of balanced tree. Basically it includes VRP and DCE, which we can for obvious reason do by our own. The patch does that, and introduces a separate pass for -O0