This is the mail archive of the 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 v3 3/3] PR80791 Consider doloop cmp use in ivopts

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:18:10AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so).
> > 
> > I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the
> > same starting value and step and type as another iv).
> > 
> > Has this been considered?
> I was also suggesting this (maybe with too many words ;)).  If
> it's a doloop target add such IV (candidate!) which has zero
> use-cost for the increment and compare but a (target configurable)
> penalty for other uses.  Invasiveness of this approach is probably
> that you need to distinguish this candidate by making it a new
> kind (or maybe we can just have a specia candidate number...).

Or just set some (boolean) flag in the candidate.

I think it should simply not be allowed for any use except the doloop
uses at all?  You can have multiple ivs for the same loop just fine,
right?  And costs will make everything work out, if the costs are set


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