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 Fri, 2004-12-24 at 14:26 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Friday 24 December 2004 11:02, Roger Sayle wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Mostafa Hagog wrote: > > > Performing the loop-header-copying is a sort of "work around" to this PR, > > > I have ported the loop-header-copying from tree's to RTL. This caused a > > > total 3.9% improvements with the rtl loop header copying (lhc). > > > > That's PR tree-optimization/19038, *not* PR target/19039. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/PR19038 for the quick link lovers. > > > > Would you mind posting your RTL-based loop header copying patch to > > gcc-patches? Not only might it be catching more optimizations than > > out-of-ssa is causing, but as a solution it might be more suitable > > for gcc 4.0 (depending upon compile-time performance impact, ugliness, > > intrusivenss, corrections to Andrew's "quick fix", etc...). > > I'm unimpressed by either RTL loop header copying, or Andrew's fix, > both just paper over the underlying problem. The real problem is > that apparently we are creating a situation where copy propagation > makes coalescing impossible. Fix that and you don't get the extra > basic block - bug fixed, done. > > > > Very impressive performance numbers though. > > Indeed. We really should fix this one way or another for GCC 4.0. Well, this ought to fix the poor placement of the copy instruction. Bootstrapped and regression tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Attachment:
PPP
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |