On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I did a change proposed by Richard - unconditionally allocate from the heap.
>
> Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
>
> Is it OK for trunk?
+ if (!is_gimple_assign (stmt)
+ || gimple_h
Hi All,
I did a change proposed by Richard - unconditionally allocate from the heap.
Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
Is it OK for trunk?
ChangeLog
2015-01-15 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR tree-optimization/64434
* cfgexpand.c (reorder_operands): New function.
(expand_g
Jakub,
I did all changes requested by you.
Here is updated patch.
BTW I thought that gcc performs splitting of blocks with huge size.
2015-01-14 16:33 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:28:42PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I did all changes proposed by Ri
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:28:42PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I did all changes proposed by Richard and delete check on def in the
>> same block as Jakub proposed.
>> I also moved check on optimization to call site..
>>
>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:28:42PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I did all changes proposed by Richard and delete check on def in the
> same block as Jakub proposed.
> I also moved check on optimization to call site..
>
> I also checked that bootstrap and regression testing did not
Hi All,
I did all changes proposed by Richard and delete check on def in the
same block as Jakub proposed.
I also moved check on optimization to call site..
I also checked that bootstrap and regression testing did not show any
new failures.
Is it OK for trunk?
2015-01-14 14:02 GMT+03:00 Jakub
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:58:50AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> + /* Swap operands if the second one is more expensive. */
> >> + def0 = get_gimple_for_ssa_name (op0);
> >> + if (!def0)
> >> + continue;
> >> + def1 = get_gimple_for_ssa_name (op1);
> >> + if (!def1
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:32:13PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>> Sorry, I resend correct patch.
>
>> +reorder_operands (basic_block bb)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int *lattice; /* Hold cost of each statement. */
>> + unsigned int i = 0, n =
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:32:13PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Sorry, I resend correct patch.
> +reorder_operands (basic_block bb)
> +{
> + unsigned int *lattice; /* Hold cost of each statement. */
> + unsigned int i = 0, n = 0;
> + gimple_stmt_iterator gsi;
> + gimple_seq stmts;
> + gi
Sorry, I resend correct patch.
Yuri.
2015-01-14 13:23 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:12:20PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here is updated patch which was redesigned accordingly to Richard review.
>> It performs swapping operands of commutative operations
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 01:12:20PM +0300, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here is updated patch which was redesigned accordingly to Richard review.
> It performs swapping operands of commutative operations to expand the
> expensive one first.
>
> Bootstrap and regression testing did not show
Hi All,
Here is updated patch which was redesigned accordingly to Richard review.
It performs swapping operands of commutative operations to expand the
expensive one first.
Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures.
Is it OK for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog
2015-01-14 Yuri Rumyant
12 matches
Mail list logo
