This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common addressing part in gimple strength reduction
- From: "bin.cheng" <bin dot cheng at arm dot com>
- To: "Bin Cheng" <Bin dot Cheng at arm dot com>, "'Bill Schmidt'" <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "Yufeng Zhang" <Yufeng dot Zhang at arm dot com>
- Cc: "Richard Biener" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:47:15 +0800
- Subject: RE: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common addressing part in gimple strength reduction
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <003f01cea7a9$8e984ae0$abc8e0a0$ at arm dot com> <CAFiYyc0aAW99axqPLW5vbC-+g2385aX-CsCMD4ws72GUj=b-Wg at mail dot gmail dot com> <1378685738 dot 3730 dot 16 dot camel at gnopaine> <004801cead25$724765c0$56d63140$ at arm dot com> <1378740018 dot 3730 dot 21 dot camel at gnopaine> <1378740932 dot 3730 dot 23 dot camel at gnopaine> <004901ceadf9$195f9700$4c1ec500$ at arm dot com> <1378819832 dot 3730 dot 35 dot camel at gnopaine> <005001ceaf7f$338eb160$9aac1420$ at arm dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> email@example.com] On Behalf Of bin.cheng
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 2:13 PM
> To: 'Bill Schmidt'; Yufeng Zhang; Yufeng Zhang
> Cc: Richard Biener; GCC Patches
> Subject: RE: [PATCH GCC]Catch more MEM_REFs sharing common addressing
> part in gimple strength reduction
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Bill Schmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 15:41 +0800, bin.cheng wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Bill Schmidt
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > I rely on size_binop to convert T2 into sizetype, because T2' may be
> in other kind of type. Otherwise there will be ssa_verify error later.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, I see now. I had thought this was handled by fold_build2, but
> >> >> apparently not. I guess all T2's formerly handled were already
> >> >> sizetype as expected. Thanks for the explanation!
> >> >
> >> > So, wouldn't it suffice to change t2 to fold_convert (sizetype, t2)
> >> > in the argument list to fold_build2? It's picking nits, but that
> >> > would be slightly more efficient.
> >> Hi Bill,
> >> This is the 2nd version of patch with your comments incorporated.
> >> Bootstrap and re-test on x86. Re-test on ARM ongoing. Is it ok if tests
> > Looks good to me! Thanks, Bin.
> Sorry I have to hold on this patch since it causes several tests failed on ARM.
> Will investigate it and get back ASAP.
The reported failure is false alarm and happens on trunk too. I must have compared wrong testing results.
Since there is no regression and the patch is approved before, I will apply it to trunk.