Hi,
The gimple-ssa-strength-reduction pass handles CAND_REFs in order to find
different MEM_REFs sharing common part in addressing expression. If such
MEM_REFs are found, the pass rewrites MEM_REFs, and produces more efficient
addressing expression during the RTL passes.
The pass analyzes address
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:56 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The gimple-ssa-strength-reduction pass handles CAND_REFs in order to find
> different MEM_REFs sharing common part in addressing expression. If such
> MEM_REFs are found, the pass rewrites MEM_REFs, and produces more efficient
> addressin
On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 11:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:56 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The gimple-ssa-strength-reduction pass handles CAND_REFs in order to find
> > different MEM_REFs sharing common part in addressing expression. If such
> > MEM_REFs are found
On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 11:15 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:56 AM, bin.cheng wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The gimple-ssa-strength-reduction pass handles CAND_REFs in order to find
> > different MEM_REFs sharing common part in addressing expression. If such
> > MEM_REFs are found
Thanks for reviewing, I will correct all stupid spelling problem in the next
version of patch.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
>
>>>+ int (i * S).
>>>+ Otherwise, just return double int zero. */
>
> This is sufficient, since you are properly checking the next_interp
> c
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 14:25 +0800, bin.cheng wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing, I will correct all stupid spelling problem in the next
> version of patch.
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> >
> >>>+ int (i * S).
> >>>+ Otherwise, just return double int zero. */
> >
> >
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 10:20 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 14:25 +0800, bin.cheng wrote:
> > Thanks for reviewing, I will correct all stupid spelling problem in the
> > next version of patch.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bill Schmidt
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>>+
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
>
>> > I rely on size_binop to convert T2 into sizetype, because T2' may be in
>> > other kind of type. Otherwise there will be ssa_verify error later.
>>
>> OK, I see now. I had thought this was handled by fold_build2, but
>> apparently not
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 15:41 +0800, bin.cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> >
> >> > I rely on size_binop to convert T2 into sizetype, because T2' may be in
> >> > other kind of type. Otherwise there will be ssa_verify error later.
> >>
> >> OK, I see now.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 15:41 +0800, bin.cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bill Schmidt
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I rely on size_binop to convert T2 into sizetype, because T2' may be in
>> >> > other kind of type. Otherwise
ject: RE: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common addressing
> part in gimple strength reduction
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Bill Schmidt
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 15:41 +0800, bin.cheng wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013
The new test gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-39.c fails in 64 bit mode (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2013-09/msg00455.html ).
Looking for MEM in the dump returns
_12 = MEM[(int[50] *)_17];
MEM[(int[50] *)_20] = _13;
TIA
Dominique
> -Original Message-
> From: Dominique Dhumieres [mailto:domi...@lps.ens.fr]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 1:47 AM
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: hjl.to...@gmail.com; Bin Cheng
> Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common
> addressing pa
On 09/18/13 02:26, bin.cheng wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Dominique Dhumieres [mailto:domi...@lps.ens.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 1:47 AM
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: hjl.to...@gmail.com; Bin Cheng
Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common
addressing
14 matches
Mail list logo
