Il 26/07/2012 22:22, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
Aha, I honestly couldn't figure out that was what you were trying to
catch with the version you posted previously.
How about this one? Tested as before.
Yeah, that's cleaner.
Paolo
Il 26/07/2012 04:25, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
On 07/25/2012 01:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
What I'm worried about is the extra cost of malloc-ing and free-ing
the pointer set. Perhaps you can skip the pointer set creation in
the common case where find_comparison_args does not iterate?
On 07/26/2012 01:28 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 26/07/2012 04:25, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
On 07/25/2012 01:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
What I'm worried about is the extra cost of malloc-ing and free-ing
the pointer set. Perhaps you can skip the pointer set creation in
the common case
On 07/26/2012 01:22 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
2012-07-26 Andrew Jenner and...@codesourcery.com
Sandra Loosemore san...@codesourcery.com
gcc/
* cse.c (find_comparison_args): Check for cycles of any length.
gcc/testsuite/
*
Il 24/07/2012 22:17, Sandra Loosemore ha scritto:
I was looking to see what needs to be done to un-stick this previously
submitted patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01419.html
Paolo's suggestion was to re-write this to use a tortoise-and-hare
algorithm to detect the
On 07/25/2012 01:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
What I'm worried about is the extra cost of malloc-ing and free-ing the
pointer set. Perhaps you can skip the pointer set creation in the common
case where find_comparison_args does not iterate? Something like this:
[snip]
I think this
I was looking to see what needs to be done to un-stick this previously
submitted patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01419.html
Paolo's suggestion was to re-write this to use a tortoise-and-hare
algorithm to detect the circularity, rather than Andrew's solution of
using a
Il 21/05/2012 19:21, Andrew Jenner ha scritto:
Hi Paolo,
On 5/21/2012 10:12 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
That's pretty heavy-weight. Perhaps you can try the usual algorithm of
looking at x-next and x-next-next?
That would only detect cycles of length 1 and 2 though. While that would
cover
This patch is a followup to the patch Sandra Loosemore made to fix
PR50380 (see (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01402.html).
That patch only detects fixed points, but Joseph Myers found a testcase
which creates a cycle of length 2, causing find_comparison_args to stall
even with
Il 21/05/2012 17:54, Andrew Jenner ha scritto:
This patch is a followup to the patch Sandra Loosemore made to fix
PR50380 (see (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01402.html).
That patch only detects fixed points, but Joseph Myers found a testcase
which creates a cycle of length 2,
Hi Paolo,
On 5/21/2012 10:12 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
That's pretty heavy-weight. Perhaps you can try the usual algorithm of
looking at x-next and x-next-next?
That would only detect cycles of length 1 and 2 though. While that would
cover all the testcases we currently know about, I wanted
11 matches
Mail list logo
