This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] [RFC] loop index promotion pass
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:48:48 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] loop index promotion pass
- References: <20090423161719.GV22588@codesourcery.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090424184303.GZ22588@codesourcery.com> <email@example.com>
Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>> Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Comments welcome.
> Ok, I did that. It regularizes the code, but with no effect on the generated
> code. It seems that SCEV analysis is confused enough to not be able to
> compute the scalar evolution for the loads at all (I didn't yet "fix" the
> SCEV code wrt no-undefined-overflow semantics though).
Nathan's new pass has significant impact on benchmarks that people
routinely use to judge GCC. These benchmarks are based on real-world
code; a lot of code for 8- and 16-bit machines used "short" in lots of
places because that was faster, and that code is now running on 32-bit
machines. So, I don't think the pass is purely a benchmark hack -- but
even if it was, I think that GCC having good benchmark numbers is a good
thing, if that doesn't interfere with its other goals.
I think we should accept the patch (modulo, of course, any fixes
required in the ordinary course of review), unless someone sees a
better, and relatively easy, way to provide the same benefit. We can
always rip it out if there turns out to be a better way.
(For avoidance of doubt, CodeSourcery has no commercial reason to care
whether -fpromote-loop-indices makes it into the FSF tree or not.)
(650) 331-3385 x713