On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
If you can figure out a better name for the function we should
probably move it to cfganal.c
It looks like my previous e-mail about this appears to have gone got
somehow,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
If you can figure out a better name for the function we should
probably move it to cfganal.c
It looks like my previous e-mail about this appears to have gone got
somehow, so retry:
Your my_rev_post_order_compute is
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
for a followup (and I bet sth else than PRE blows up at -O2 as well).
Actually, the only thing that really blows up is that enemy
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
for a followup (and I bet sth else than PRE blows up at -O2 as well).
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
Any reason why you didn't just re-use the tree-ssa-live machinery?
Probably I didn't know about it or didn't want to keep the full life
problem life (it tries to free things as soon as possible).
I think it'd be good
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote:
Any reason why you didn't just re-use the tree-ssa-live machinery?
Probably I didn't know about it or didn't want to keep the full life
problem life (it tries to free
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
As for the equiv sets - yes, that's known. I wanted to investigate
at some point what happens if we instead record the SSA name we
registered the assert for (thus look up a chain of lattice values
instead of recording all relevant entries in a
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yikes, I didn't know about my_rev_post_order_compute. How horrible!
That function doesn't compute reverse post-order of the CFG, but a
post-order of the reverse CFG!
Ok, well - then that's what we need for compute_antic to have
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yikes, I didn't know about my_rev_post_order_compute. How horrible!
That function doesn't compute reverse post-order of the CFG, but a
post-order of the reverse CFG!
Ok, well - then
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
for a followup (and I bet sth else than PRE blows up at -O2 as well).
Actually, the only thing that really blows up is that enemy of scalability,
VRP.
FWIW, this appears to be
This removes the need for FRE to compute AVAIL_OUT which can
consume an unreasonable amount of memory for testcases like
int foo (int a)
{
int b = 0;
#define X if (a) b = b + 1;
#define XX X X X X X X X X X X
#define XXX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
#define XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
for a followup (and I bet sth else than PRE blows up at -O2 as well).
Actually, the only thing that really blows up is that enemy of scalability, VRP.
With -O2 -fno-tree-{pre,fre,vrp}, the slowest part of the compiler on
this test case
12 matches
Mail list logo
