age-
>> From: Jeff Law
>> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 12:10 AM
>> To: Richard Biener
>> Cc: JiangNing OS ; gcc-
>> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve ifcvt optimization (PR rtl-optimization/89430)
>>
>> On 6/21/19 6:23 AM, Richard Bi
On 7/11/19 10:08 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:39 AM JiangNing OS
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeff and Richard B.,
>>
>> Following your tips, I've found a much simpler solution in
>> tree-ssa-phiopt.c. Attached is the new patch. Review again, please!
>
> /* Prove that we can move
g
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeff Law
> > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 12:10 AM
> > To: Richard Biener
> > Cc: JiangNing OS ; gcc-
> > patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve ifcvt optimization (PR rtl-optimization/89430)
> >
&g
hard Biener
> Cc: JiangNing OS ; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve ifcvt optimization (PR rtl-optimization/89430)
>
> On 6/21/19 6:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > That looks like a pretty easy form to analyze. I'd suggest looking
> &
On 6/21/19 6:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> That looks like a pretty easy form to analyze. I'd suggest looking
> through tree-ssa-phiopt.c closely. There's several transformations
> in there that share similarities with yours.
>
>
> More specifically there is the conditional store eliminati
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:13 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> On 6/20/19 3:53 AM, JiangNing OS wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Appreciate your effort to review my patch! I've updated my patch as
> attached. See my answers below.
> >
> >> in current function, so the store speculation can be avoided.
> >> So at a
On 6/20/19 3:53 AM, JiangNing OS wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Appreciate your effort to review my patch! I've updated my patch as attached.
> See my answers below.
>
>> in current function, so the store speculation can be avoided.
>> So at a high level should we be doing this in gimple rather than RTL?
Hi Jeff,
Appreciate your effort to review my patch! I've updated my patch as attached.
See my answers below.
> in current function, so the store speculation can be avoided.
> So at a high level should we be doing this in gimple rather than RTL?
> We're going to have a lot more information about
On 3/14/19 10:46 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
> This patch is to fix a missing ifcvt opportunity in back-end. For the simple
> case below,
>
> if (...)
> x = a; /* x is memory */
> /* no else */
>
> We can generate conditional move and remove the branch as below if the target
> cost is acceptab
Hi,
May I know any feedback comments to this patch?
Thanks,
-Jiangning
From: Kyrill Tkachov
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 10:55 PM
To: JiangNing OS ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: ebotca...@adacore.com; ste...@gcc.gnu.org; l...@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve ifcvt optimization (PR rtl
Hi Jiangning
On 3/15/19 4:46 AM, JiangNing OS wrote:
This patch is to fix a missing ifcvt opportunity in back-end. For the
simple case below,
if (...)
x = a; /* x is memory */
/* no else */
We can generate conditional move and remove the branch as below if the
target cost is acceptable.
: JiangNing OS ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve ifcvt optimization (PR rtl-optimization/89430)
On 3/14/19 10:46 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
> This patch is to fix a missing ifcvt opportunity in back-end. For the
> simple case below,
>
> if (...)
> x = a; /* x i
On 3/14/19 10:46 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
> This patch is to fix a missing ifcvt opportunity in back-end. For the simple
> case below,
>
> if (...)
> x = a; /* x is memory */
> /* no else */
>
> We can generate conditional move and remove the branch as below if the target
> cost is acceptab
On 3/14/19 10:46 PM, JiangNing OS wrote:
> This patch is to fix a missing ifcvt opportunity in back-end. For the simple
> case below,
>
> if (...)
> x = a; /* x is memory */
> /* no else */
>
> We can generate conditional move and remove the branch as below if the target
> cost is acceptab
14 matches
Mail list logo
