I've been trying to fix some bad tree-ssa related optimisation for
s390x and come up with the attached experimental patch. The patch
is not really good - it breaks some situations in which the
optimisation was useful. With this code:
void bar(long);
void foo (char a)
{
long l;
char
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dominik Vogt
> >> wrote:
> >> > Is VRP the right pass to do this optimis
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Is VRP the right
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Vogt
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wro
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:43:58PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Vogt
> >>>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:43:58PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 01:54:20PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Something like the attached patch? Robin and me have spent quite
> > some time to figure out the new pattern. Two questions:
> >
> > 1) In the match expression you cannot jus
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Something like the attached patch? Robin and me have spent quite
some time to figure out the new pattern. Two questions:
1) In the ma
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:53:07PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Dominik Vogt
> >>wrote:
> >>>Something like the attached patch? Robin and me have spen
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:46:38PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> > Something like the attached patch? Robin and me have spent quite
>> > some time to figure out the new pattern. Two q
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:03:22PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I've been trying to fix some bad tree-ssa related optimisation for
> s390x and come up with the attached experimental patch. The patch
> is not really good - it breaks some situations in which the
> optimisation was useful. With this
> Is VRP the right pass to do this optimisation or should a later
> pass rather attempt to eliminate the new use of b_5 instead? Uli
> has brought up the idea a mini "sign extend elimination" pass that
> checks if the result of a sign extend could be replaced by the
> original quantity in all plac
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 04:29:05PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Is VRP the right pass to do this optimisation or should a later
> > pass rather attempt to eliminate the new use of b_5 instead? Uli
> > has brought up the idea a mini "sign extend elimination" pass that
> > checks if the result of
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> I've been trying to fix some bad tree-ssa related optimisation for
> s390x and come up with the attached experimental patch. The patch
> is not really good - it breaks some situations in which the
> optimisation was useful. With this code:
>
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Is VRP the right pass to do this optimisation or should a later
> > pass rather attempt to eliminate the new use of b_5 instead? Uli
> > has brought up the idea a mini "sign e
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:47:26AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> > Is VRP the right pass to do this optimisation or should a later
>> > pass rather attempt to eliminate the new use of b
16 matches
Mail list logo
