On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Michael Collison
wrote:
> Marc,
>
> Ah I did misunderstand you. Patch with match.pd formatting fix.
Ok if bootstrap/regtest passes.
Thanks,
Richard.
> On 10/01/2015 01:05 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Michael Collison wrote:
>>
>>> ChangeLog f
Marc,
Ah I did misunderstand you. Patch with match.pd formatting fix.
On 10/01/2015 01:05 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Michael Collison wrote:
ChangeLog formatting and test case fixed.
Oups, sorry for the lack of precision, but I meant indenting the code
in match.pd, I hadn't
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Michael Collison wrote:
ChangeLog formatting and test case fixed.
Oups, sorry for the lack of precision, but I meant indenting the code in
match.pd, I hadn't even looked at the ChangeLog.
--
Marc Glisse
ChangeLog formatting and test case fixed.
On 09/30/2015 12:30 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Marc Glisse wrote:
+(bit_and:c (op @0 @1) (op @0 @2))
:c seems useless here. On the other hand, it might make sense to
use op:s
since this is mostly useful if it removes the 2 original
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Michael Collison wrote:
Richard and Marc,
Latest patch attached which incorporates all comments.
2015-09-30 Michael Collison
Andrew Pinski
* match.pd ((x < y) && (x < z) -> x < min (y,z),
(x > y) and (x > z) -> x > max (y,z))
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa
Richard and Marc,
Latest patch attached which incorporates all comments.
2015-09-30 Michael Collison
Andrew Pinski
* match.pd ((x < y) && (x < z) -> x < min (y,z),
(x > y) and (x > z) -> x > max (y,z))
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-loopend.c: New test.
On 09/30/2015
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Marc Glisse wrote:
+(bit_and:c (op @0 @1) (op @0 @2))
:c seems useless here. On the other hand, it might make sense to use op:s
since this is mostly useful if it removes the 2 original comparisons.
As I was saying, :c is useless.
(x:c y z)
is replaced by two copies of the
The current patch is attached.
2015-09-30 Michael Collison
Andrew Pinski
* match.pd ((x < y) && (x < z) -> x < min (y,z),
(x > y) and (x > z) -> x > max (y,z))
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/minmax-loopend.c: New test.
On 09/30/2015 01:14 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Michael Collison
wrote:
> Richard and Marc,
>
> What is ':s'? I don't see any documentation for it. So you would like me to
> remove :c and add :s?
There is documentation for both in the internals manual.
I don't have enough context to say whether you should remo
Richard and Marc,
What is ':s'? I don't see any documentation for it. So you would like me
to remove :c and add :s?
On 09/18/2015 02:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Just a couple extra points. We can end up with a mix of < and >, which might
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Michael Collison wrote:
Can you elaborate on merging the patterns using 'ext' as mentioned in your
post? I don't see any documentation or examples.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/The-Language.html
"for" lets you iterate on several variables at the same time.
For in
Marc,
Can you elaborate on merging the patterns using 'ext' as mentioned in
your post? I don't see any documentation or examples.
On 09/18/2015 12:00 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Michael Collison wrote:
Here is the the patch modified with test cases for MIN_EXPR and
MAX_EXPR
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Just a couple extra points. We can end up with a mix of < and >, which might
> prevent from matching:
>
> _3 = b_1(D) > a_2(D);
> _5 = a_2(D) < c_4(D);
> _8 = _3 & _5;
>
> Just like with &, we could also transform:
> x < y | x < z --->
Just a couple extra points. We can end up with a mix of < and >, which
might prevent from matching:
_3 = b_1(D) > a_2(D);
_5 = a_2(D) < c_4(D);
_8 = _3 & _5;
Just like with &, we could also transform:
x < y | x < z ---> x < max(y, z)
(but maybe wait to make sure reviewers are ok with t
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Michael Collison wrote:
Here is the the patch modified with test cases for MIN_EXPR and MAX_EXPR
expressions. I need some assistance; this test case will fail on targets that
don't have support for MIN/MAX such as 68k. Is there any way to remedy this
short of enumerating w
On 07/31/2015 11:27 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/31/2015 12:18 PM, Michael Collison wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Yes I will create a test case. I'm not quite sure what to check for even
in the machine dependent test case. It's quite possible for the
instructions that are generated to change over time.
I think
On 08/05/2015 10:07 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote:
Richard Biener wrote:
Furthermore it doesn't work for three such ops which would require
an additional pattern like
(simplfiy
(bit_and:c (op @0 (min @1 @2)) (op @0 @3))
(op @0 (min (min @1 @2) @3
if that's profitable?
Shouldn't that be j
Richard Biener wrote:
Furthermore it doesn't work for three such ops which would require
an additional pattern like
(simplfiy
(bit_and:c (op @0 (min @1 @2)) (op @0 @3))
(op @0 (min (min @1 @2) @3
if that's profitable?
Shouldn't that be just a case of binding @1 in the original patte
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 12:18 PM, Michael Collison wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> Yes I will create a test case. I'm not quite sure what to check for even
>> in the machine dependent test case. It's quite possible for the
>> instructions that are generated to
On 07/31/2015 12:18 PM, Michael Collison wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Yes I will create a test case. I'm not quite sure what to check for even
in the machine dependent test case. It's quite possible for the
instructions that are generated to change over time.
I think we're going to want to look at the gimple
Hi Jeff,
Yes I will create a test case. I'm not quite sure what to check for even
in the machine dependent test case. It's quite possible for the
instructions that are generated to change over time.
On 7/31/2015 9:20 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/28/2015 01:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The abo
On 07/28/2015 01:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The above case is a corner case I think - the number of && you can change
into (multiple) MIN/MAX is unbound but we might only care about the case
where there will be one MIN/MAX operation.
I suspect that's going to be the most important/common case
Richard and Jeff,
Any conclusion to this discussion? Is this okay in match.pd or would you
like to see it implemented elsewhere?
On 7/28/2015 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/27/2015 03:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/27/2015 03:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Michael Collison
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch is designed to optimize end of loop conditions involving of
>>> the
>>> form
>>> i < x && i < y into i < min (x,
On 07/27/2015 03:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Michael Collison
wrote:
This patch is designed to optimize end of loop conditions involving of the
form
i < x && i < y into i < min (x, y). Loop condition involving '>' are
handled similarly using max(x,y).
As an e
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Michael Collison
wrote:
> This patch is designed to optimize end of loop conditions involving of the
> form
> i < x && i < y into i < min (x, y). Loop condition involving '>' are
> handled similarly using max(x,y).
> As an example:
>
> #define N 1024
>
> int a[N]
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Michael Collison
> wrote:
>> This patch is designed to optimize end of loop conditions involving of the
>> form
>> i < x && i < y into i < min (x, y). Loop condition involving '>' are
>> handled similarly usin
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Michael Collison
wrote:
> This patch is designed to optimize end of loop conditions involving of the
> form
> i < x && i < y into i < min (x, y). Loop condition involving '>' are
> handled similarly using max(x,y).
> As an example:
>
> #define N 1024
>
> int a[N
This patch is designed to optimize end of loop conditions involving of
the form
i < x && i < y into i < min (x, y). Loop condition involving '>' are
handled similarly using max(x,y).
As an example:
#define N 1024
int a[N], b[N], c[N];
void add (unsignedint m, unsignedint n)
{
unsignedin
29 matches
Mail list logo
