This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH Atom][PR middle-end/44382] Tree reassociation improvement
- From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich dot gnu at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:52:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH Atom][PR middle-end/44382] Tree reassociation improvement
- References: <CAMbmDYYhfpA845e7TA50coQxBrn8-ZgZCVrx6DeX-D8x4MkK7Q@mail.gmail.com> <20110713232837.GA31809@hungry-tiger.westford.ibm.com> <CAFiYyc31XGVFH9NiZuhmeBSg48Uju=ZYVR44cTWnDEbB0TEe4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc3gZw9ouZb-4CmVWd9dtYnSMQxY-xZGOoe3txoaev3eCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYa1hwR1WD2kaFW0=x5CbXLt10vs0WcHVgZKjEUeQjAang@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0fj7gSbCrpPTXs2NjCaG8LOKKReaBvxnv8ZKUEQqaHmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYYFckMTNEtJ0F+Mpr9EA5Qf-v-hBYzHHKBD6QZ=NC9XTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYZW_SX08bzQ9z1OdK5fEADc1oYD9GB8GYB8cYjBe+Svpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0aewXE8kxzdiMTfSMPrX=udWMRmM4iVaVRK9kQ_FBGzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYb9m6iV3ZS1GS-_HSHezum1tB8G78mg_VYuah3wkA-cAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0t-einW82V6sYLzuwTm=WG1Ej3ngi_dogC4ZS02TtdRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYaTTs4HndicGdQkJ4WwvzGMfF21FRgqSj7Rc31OhXwO0A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYZ+JU2=TJhP5Hdpa78NPOApf47oUbj0yAXrw4cZwP9ivw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0opH76_+RRBcycJ7kycx92xfAPPR92hEn+aDM18jY+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYYc_eYGZ2w+E+rY_zvERUVrhfXkMpnAjxCzKT9_s7-HAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc06f5m2njPh3i1kbXc=jUAviUfv3dRPZ3NFxta3feX=mA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbmDYYuwh9d2c1yBjreKRouU3QLmN5qD+yMKeVr3XqqWGKjMw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> this seems to not allow cycles_best to drop with lower width, but
>> that it can't should be an implementation detail of get_required_cycles.
>> To make it not so, can you add a comment before the loop, like
>>
>> ?/* get_required_cycles is monotonically increasing with lower width
>> ? ? so we can perform a binary search for the minimal width that still
>> ? ? results in the optimal cycle count. ?*/
>>
>
> Fixed. Thanks!
>
>>
>> With the above change the non-x86 specifc parts are ok. ?Please get
>> approval for them from a x86 maintainer.
>>
>
> Could please someone review x86 part?
I assume that you need to split tune attribute to int and FP part to
handle reassociation for other targets, since Atom handles both in the
same way.
Please also describe function return value in the comment (and perhaps
in documentation, too).
OK with this addition.
Thanks,
Uros.