This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 03/18/2015 12:19 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Well, they're doing different things, so they ought to be complementary to some degree.On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:On 03/17/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:I'll test both. In the common case, the cost is going to be the basic bookkeeping so that we can compute the transparent property. The actual computation of transparency and everything else is guarded on having something in the hash tables -- and the overwhelming majority of the time there's nothing in the hash tables. Regardless, I'll pin down boxes and do some testing.I'm slightly leaning towards trying it even in stage4, but if e.g.richidisagrees, we could defer it to stage1 too.I'd be OK either way. I just want us to make a decision one way or theIf it fixes a regression then OK for trunk, otherwise please wait for stage 1 to open.It fixes 64317 which is a P2 regression.I had a pass which I inherited from my predecessor which was basically doing the same as your patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/postreload-load.c;h=2652e51f8eca310d51db3a30e5f6c8847be436ce;hb=refs/heads/apinski/thunderx-cost But I like your patch much better than this one. I saw many loads being removed for AARCH64 also at -Ofast -funroll-loops on SPEC 2006 with this pass. But it seemed to due to subregs which I had mentioned at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-01/msg00125.html . When I get a chance I can test your patch out on AARCH64 and disable "my" pass to see if "my" pass catches more than your patch.
Jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |