On 11/07/12 12:30, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 13/11/10 10:50, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> I profiled the pass on spec2000:
>>>
>>> -mabi=32 -mabi=64
>>> ee-pass (usr time): 0.70 1.16
>>> total (usr time): 919.30 879.26
>>> ee-pass(%): 0.08
the pass does not handle induction variables, i.e. variables that feed
into themselves.
kenny
On 07/13/2012 03:53 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 12/07/12 14:04, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
you are on the right track with the example but combine will not get
this unless everything is in the same bb.
the
it really is not.
the problem is that sign extension removal is just a more difficult
problem than what you are considering. You have attacked a small part
of the problem and have a good start but you really should consider the
whole problem.
kenny
On 07/13/2012 03:53 AM, Tom de Vries wro
On 12/07/12 14:04, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> you are on the right track with the example but combine will not get
> this unless everything is in the same bb.
> the whole point of having a separate pass for doing extension
> elimination is that it needs to be done over the entire function.
>
There
sorry about the two messages. i mis spelled the gcc-patches on the first
try.
you are on the right track with the example but combine will not get
this unless everything is in the same bb.
the whole point of having a separate pass for doing extension
elimination is that it needs to be done ove
Kenneth,
I see I replied to your original message that had the wrong CC, I'm now CC-ing
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org.
Thanks,
- Tom
On 12/07/12 11:05, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 12/07/12 03:39, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> I have a problem with the approach that you have taken here. I believe
Tom,
I have a problem with the approach that you have taken here. I believe
that this could be a very useful addition to gcc so I am in general very
supportive, but i think you are missing an important case.
My problem is that it the pass does not actually look at the target and
make any d
On 11/07/12 13:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:30:12PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> I've done the following:
>> - refactored the pass such that it now scans at most twice over all
>> instructions.
>> - updated the patch to be applicable to current trunk
>> - updated the mot
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:30:12PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've done the following:
> - refactored the pass such that it now scans at most twice over all
> instructions.
> - updated the patch to be applicable to current trunk
> - updated the motivating example to a more applicable one (as di
On 13/11/10 10:50, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I profiled the pass on spec2000:
>>
>> -mabi=32 -mabi=64
>> ee-pass (usr time): 0.70 1.16
>> total (usr time): 919.30 879.26
>> ee-pass(%): 0.08 0.13
>>
>> The pass takes 0.13% or less of th
10 matches
Mail list logo
