On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> `On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 04/19/2016 11:50 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>
1. This patch introduces a "regression" in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-11.c
in
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> `On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/19/2016 11:50 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>
>>> 1. This patch introduces a "regression" in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-11.c
>>> in that we no longer perform FSM threading during vrp2 bu
`On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/19/2016 11:50 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
>> 1. This patch introduces a "regression" in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-11.c
>> in that we no longer perform FSM threading during vrp2 but instead we
>> detect two new jump threading opportunities d
On 04/19/2016 11:50 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
1. This patch introduces a "regression" in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-thread-11.c
in that we no longer perform FSM threading during vrp2 but instead we
detect two new jump threading opportunities during vrp1. Not sure if
the new code is better but it is sho
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/28/2016 06:08 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The glitch in that plan is there is no easy linkage between the use of
>>> b_5
>>> in bb4 and the ASSERT_EXPR in bb3. That's something Aldy, Andrew and
>>> myself
>>> are looking at in
On 04/28/2016 06:08 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
The glitch in that plan is there is no easy linkage between the use of b_5
in bb4 and the ASSERT_EXPR in bb3. That's something Aldy, Andrew and myself
are looking at independently for some of Aldy's work.
I see.. One other deficiency I noticed in
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/20/2016 03:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Patrick Palka
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch makes the jump threader look through the BIT_AND_EXPRs and
>>> BIT_IOR_EXPRs within a condition so that we could find
On 04/20/2016 03:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
This patch makes the jump threader look through the BIT_AND_EXPRs and
BIT_IOR_EXPRs within a condition so that we could find dominating
ASSERT_EXPRs that could help make the overall condition eva
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This patch makes the jump threader look through the BIT_AND_EXPRs and
> BIT_IOR_EXPRs within a condition so that we could find dominating
> ASSERT_EXPRs that could help make the overall condition evaluate to a
> constant. For example, we cur
This patch makes the jump threader look through the BIT_AND_EXPRs and
BIT_IOR_EXPRs within a condition so that we could find dominating
ASSERT_EXPRs that could help make the overall condition evaluate to a
constant. For example, we currently don't perform any jump threading in
the following test c
10 matches
Mail list logo