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]

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Resubmission of new implementation of SRA


2009/6/7 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 06:29:38AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> 2009/5/29 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 05:57:34PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 May 2009, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > This is hopefully the final version of intraprocedural SRA, addressing
>> >> > all some ?comments from Richi's (some ?of which were sent ?only to me,
>> >> > but they are all minor). ?The previous post is here:
>> >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01628.html
>> >> >
>> >> > The biggest difference is ?that auxiliary statements generated to turn
>> >> > complex number and vector ?replacements which are not gimple registers
>> >> > into registers are created ?by force_gimple_operand_gsi rather than by
>> >> > functions of my own.
>> >> >
>> >> > Most ?notably, some ?unnecessary ?complex typecasting ?is removed ?and
>> >> > complex numbers which ?participate in an assignment into ?one of their
>> >> > components are dealt with by simply not making them a gimple register.
>> >> >
>> >> > The first ?patch is the ?new implementation itself. ?The ?second patch
>> >> > removes SRA parameters which are ?no longer used and the third adjusts
>> >> > the testsuite and adds new testcases.
>> >> >
>> >> > The whole ?patch set ?bootstraps on x86_64-linux-gnu ?(including Ada),
>> >> > and i586-suse-linux. ? There are no ?new regressions on both ?of these
>> >> > platforms.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, OK for trunk?
>> >>
>> >> Ok.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Great, committed as revision 147980.
>> >
>>
>> This caused:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32950
>>
>
> No, it didn't. ?Even the previous regression ICEs with -fno-tree-sra.
>
> BTW, new SRA ?uncovered this because it did ?not scalarize a structure
> with ?only ?a single ?scalar ?(complex) ?field ?because it ?is ?always
> accessed as ?a structure and never ?as a scalar. ?I ?wonder whether it
> would be useful enough to ?detect these cases and scalarize them (even
> though it would further complicate the code, of course).

No.

Richard.

> Martin
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]