On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
FYI, Fixed in r198416.
Thanks,
Teresa
I noticed that sometimes GCC generates:
_8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D), len_4);
_8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D),
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:35 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com
wrote:
FYI, Fixed in r198416.
Thanks,
Teresa
I noticed that sometimes
FYI, Fixed in r198416.
Thanks,
Teresa
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
Reproduced. This looks like another instance of a case I found testing
my follow-on patch: the helper routines have some assertion checking
that is too strict for the broader
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
FYI, Fixed in r198416.
Thanks,
Teresa
I noticed that sometimes GCC generates:
_8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D), len_4);
_8 = memcpy (ret_6, s_2(D), len_4);
memcpy (_17, buffer_12(D), add_16);
memcpy (_17, buffer_12(D),
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during
I'll take a look. Teresa
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa
Reproduced. This looks like another instance of a case I found testing
my follow-on patch: the helper routines have some assertion checking
that is too strict for the broader usage where we may be scaling
counts up and not just down. I am verifying and will send a patch in
the morning that
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the original and new node weight
computations used truncating divides, leading to a loss of total
Hi Honza,
I converted all other weight update locations to use the helper
functions in basic-block.h instead of truncation (the patch I checked
in a couple weeks ago covered the cases that already used RDIV - see
the follow-on messages in this thread). I am almost done testing with
SPEC cpu2006.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the original and new
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
I found that the node weight updates on cloned nodes during ipa-cp were
leading to incorrect/insane weights. Both the original and new node weight
computations used truncating divides, leading to a loss of total node
12 matches
Mail list logo
