On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 16:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 16:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:21, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 16:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:02, Richard Biener
> > > >
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 16:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:02, Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:03 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 16:55, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:02, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:03 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:02, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:03 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021,
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:02, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:03 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 9:03 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:23, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021,
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:23, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 17:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > As suggested in PR, I have attached WIP
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > > As suggested in PR, I have attached WIP patch that adds two patterns
> > > to match.pd:
> > > erfc(x) --> 1 -
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard,
> > As suggested in PR, I have attached WIP patch that adds two patterns
> > to match.pd:
> > erfc(x) --> 1 - erf(x) if canonicalize_math_p() and,
> > 1 - erf(x) --> erfc(x)
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> As suggested in PR, I have attached WIP patch that adds two patterns
> to match.pd:
> erfc(x) --> 1 - erf(x) if canonicalize_math_p() and,
> 1 - erf(x) --> erfc(x) if !canonicalize_math_p().
>
> This works to remove call to erfc for
Hi Richard,
As suggested in PR, I have attached WIP patch that adds two patterns
to match.pd:
erfc(x) --> 1 - erf(x) if canonicalize_math_p() and,
1 - erf(x) --> erfc(x) if !canonicalize_math_p().
This works to remove call to erfc for the following test:
double f(double x)
{
double g(double,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:11 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 16:04, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 18:14, Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 16:04, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 18:14, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 18:14, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 15:10, Richard Biener
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 1:48 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
>
Don't we have a flag specific to honoring nans? Would that be better
to use than flag_unsafe_math_optimizations? As Uli mentioned,
there's
>>>
>>> That's only relevant for
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> Don't we have a flag specific to honoring nans? Would that be better
> >> to use than flag_unsafe_math_optimizations? As Uli mentioned,
> >> there's
> >
> > That's only relevant for the comparison optimization, of course.
> >
> > Converting erfc
On 11/5/18 11:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> Don't we have a flag specific to honoring nans? Would that be better to
>> use than flag_unsafe_math_optimizations? As Uli mentioned, there's
>
> That's only relevant for the comparison optimization, of course.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> Don't we have a flag specific to honoring nans? Would that be better to
> use than flag_unsafe_math_optimizations? As Uli mentioned, there's
That's only relevant for the comparison optimization, of course.
Converting erfc to 1-erf is dubious, since the
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 18:14, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 15:10, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > This patch
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:11 PM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 15:10, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > This patch adds two transforms to match.pd to CSE erf/erfc pair.
> > > erfc(x) is
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 15:10, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > This patch adds two transforms to match.pd to CSE erf/erfc pair.
> > erfc(x) is canonicalized to 1 - erf(x) and is then reversed to 1 -
> > erf(x) when
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:37 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> This patch adds two transforms to match.pd to CSE erf/erfc pair.
> erfc(x) is canonicalized to 1 - erf(x) and is then reversed to 1 -
> erf(x) when canonicalization is disabled and result of erf(x) has
> single use within 1 -
On 11/2/18 3:36 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch adds two transforms to match.pd to CSE erf/erfc pair.
> erfc(x) is canonicalized to 1 - erf(x) and is then reversed to 1 -
> erf(x) when canonicalization is disabled and result of erf(x) has
> single use within 1 - erf(x).
>
> The
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:36 AM Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> So, the patch adds another transform erf(x) > 1 -> 0
> which resolves the regression.
Why don't you match for any constant with absolute value >= 1.0
instead of just 1.0?
Hi,
This patch adds two transforms to match.pd to CSE erf/erfc pair.
erfc(x) is canonicalized to 1 - erf(x) and is then reversed to 1 -
erf(x) when canonicalization is disabled and result of erf(x) has
single use within 1 - erf(x).
The patch regressed builtin-nonneg-1.c. The following test-case
30 matches
Mail list logo