* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
@ 2005-03-08 3:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-08 3:16 ` Diego Novillo
2005-03-08 3:16 ` dnovillo at redhat dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-03-08 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08 03:13 -------
Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
2005-03-08 3:13 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-03-08 3:16 ` dnovillo at redhat dot com
2005-03-08 3:18 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at redhat dot com @ 2005-03-08 3:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:16 -------
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general
induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance
degradation.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
>
Because variable i is static.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
2005-03-08 3:13 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-08 3:16 ` dnovillo at redhat dot com
@ 2005-03-08 3:18 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2005-03-08 3:30 ` Daniel Berlin
2005-03-08 3:21 ` dnovillo at redhat dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu @ 2005-03-08 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-03-08 03:18 -------
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>> Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
> Because variable i is static.
I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
-- Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 3:18 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2005-03-08 3:30 ` Daniel Berlin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2005-03-08 3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugzilla; +Cc: gcc-bugs
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 03:18 +0000, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-03-08 03:18 -------
> Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> >> Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
> > Because variable i is static.
>
> I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
In swim, most of the loop bounds are accessed through the COMMON block,
which is a structure.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-08 3:18 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2005-03-08 3:21 ` dnovillo at redhat dot com
2005-03-08 3:30 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at redhat dot com @ 2005-03-08 3:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-03-08 03:20 -------
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general
induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance
degradation.
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
>
Indeed. I misread 20376 as 20367. Sorry about that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-08 3:21 ` dnovillo at redhat dot com
@ 2005-03-08 3:30 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org
2005-03-09 17:53 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: dberlin at dberlin dot org @ 2005-03-08 3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-08 03:30 -------
Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of
general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause
performance degradation.
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 03:18 +0000, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-03-08 03:18 -------
> Subject: Re: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> >> Why isn't the tree level loop IV-OPTs doing this?
> > Because variable i is static.
>
> I think you commenting on the wrong bug.
In swim, most of the loop bounds are accessed through the COMMON block,
which is a structure.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-08 3:30 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org
@ 2005-03-09 17:53 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
2005-03-27 10:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: sje at cup dot hp dot com @ 2005-03-09 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sje at cup dot hp dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-09 17:53 ` sje at cup dot hp dot com
@ 2005-03-27 10:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-30 11:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-03-27 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-27 10:19 -------
Two things:
1) Test case? No test case, no way to reproduce it without re-doing the
investigating you have already done. Stop work duplication, provide
test cases to your fellow GCC hackers. I don't think anyone will
confirm this bug until there is a self-contained test case (that you
can add to this PR as an attachment), preferably with an annotated RTL
dump to show the problem (also as an attachment). See also the bug
reporting guide, "http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#report".
2) Try compiling with -fweb, it may result in the code you are looking
for. It basically is live range splitting, and it is a known problem
that we don't do that after unrolling. Really, his is a job for the
register allocator, but since the existing one in GCC can not do this,
we need a live range splitting pass after unrolling. (And no, we do
not need this pass in the general case because when going out of SSA
form from trees we already do live range splitting too, and web is a
surprisingly expensive pass).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |stevenb at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-27 10:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-03-30 11:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-03-30 14:43 ` canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-03-30 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-30 11:38 -------
Waiting for a test case...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-30 11:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-03-30 14:43 ` canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
2005-03-30 19:54 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn @ 2005-03-30 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn 2005-03-30 14:42 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Waiting for a test case...
Part 1
! Test sase for address giv (general induction variable) optimization.
subroutine dot_product (sum, a, b, n)
real*8 a(n), b(n), sum
sum = 0
do i = 1, n
sum = sum + a (i) * b(i)
end do
end
Part 2
// IA-64 Assembly code generated by GCC without address giv splitting
mov ar.lc = r14
.L4:
// Loop is unrolled, but the address givs are not splitted.
// Register r17, r19 is used to calculate all the addresses
// of the array elements.
.mmb
ldfd f7 = [r17]
ldfd f6 = [r19]
nop 0
.mmi
add r17 = r15, r33
add r19 = r15, r34
shladd r15 = r18, 3, r0
;;
.mmf
nop 0
nop 0
fma.d f8 = f7, f6, f9
.mmi
ldfd f7 = [r17]
ldfd f6 = [r19]
add r17 = r15, r33
.mfi
nop 0
shladd r15 = r16, 3, r0
;;
.mmf
nop 0
nop 0
fma.d f8 = f7, f6, f8
.mmi
ldfd f7 = [r17]
ldfd f6 = [r19]
add r17 = r15, r33
.mmb
nop 0
add r19 = r15, r34
nop 0
;;
.mmf
nop 0
nop 0
fma.d f8 = f7, f6, f8
.mmb
ldfd f7 = [r17]
ldfd f6 = [r19]
nop 0
;;
.mmf
nop 0
nop 0
fma.d f8 = f7, f6, f8
;;
.mfb
nop 0
mov f9 = f8
br.cloop.sptk.few .L4
...
.endp dot_product__#
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.0 20050302 (experimental)"
Part 3
// IA-64 assembly code generated by GCC with address giv splitting
mov ar.lc = r16
.L28:
[.L3:]
[.L2:]
...
// The loop is unrolled, and the address givs are splitted.
// Register r14, r8, r3, r35, r33, r31,r28, r29 is used to
// caculate the address of each array element respectively.
.mmi
ldfd f38 = [r14]
ldfd f39 = [r8]
add r31 = r34, r23
.mmi
ldfd f35 = [r3]
ldfd f37 = [r35]
add r33 = r34, r24
;;
.mmb
ldfd f33 = [r33]
ldfd f34 = [r31]
nop 0
.mmi
add r28 = r30, r23
add r29 = r30, r24
adds r22 = 4, r22
;;
.mmf
ldfd f32 = [r29]
ldfd f15 = [r28]
fma.d f36 = f38, f39, f14
;;
.mmf
nop 0
nop 0
fma.d f13 = f35, f37, f36
;;
.mmf
nop 0
nop 0
fma.d f12 = f33, f34, f13
;;
.mfb
nop 0
fma.d f14 = f32, f15, f12
br.cloop.sptk.few .L28
;;
.L9:
.mfb
stfd [r32] = f14
nop 0
nop 0
...
.endp dot_product__#
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 3.5-tree-ssa 20031221 (CCRG)"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-30 14:43 ` canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
@ 2005-03-30 19:54 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-24 16:39 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-03-30 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-03-30 19:54:01
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-03-30 19:54 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-24 16:39 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-24 16:56 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-24 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 16:39 -------
Induction variable splitting works as expected (note that r17 and r19 from each
iteration are computed independently, so they should not block scheduling).
Iv splitting does not rename the variables in different iterations of the
unrolled loop directly. But you will get this if you also use -fweb.
Note however that even with -fweb you won't get the code you would like,
simply because register allocator decides to put all the new registers back
into one (which is ok, since their life ranges do not overlap).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-24 16:39 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-24 16:56 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-26 12:13 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-24 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 16:56 -------
Actually, with -funroll-loops -fweb -frename-registers you get the code you
want.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-24 16:56 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-26 12:13 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-13 9:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-26 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-26 12:12 -------
But there are bugs about -frename-registers being slow and broken, see
PR15023. It looks to me like the issues from that bug report may be
fixed already, but someone should verify this.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |15023
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-06-26 12:13 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-13 9:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-13 11:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-14 15:33 ` canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-13 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-13 09:38 -------
Subject: Bug 20376
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: rakdver@gcc.gnu.org 2005-07-13 09:38:49
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog toplev.c
gcc/doc : invoke.texi
Log message:
PR rtl-optimization/20376
* toplev.c (process_options): Enable -fweb and -frename-registers when
unrolling.
* doc/invoke.texi: Update the information about when -fweb and
-frename-registers are enabled.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.9426&r2=2.9427
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/toplev.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.969&r2=1.970
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/doc/invoke.texi.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.647&r2=1.648
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-13 9:41 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-13 11:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-14 15:33 ` canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-13 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-13 11:38 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation.
2005-03-08 2:49 [Bug rtl-optimization/20376] New: The missed-optimization of general induction variables in the new rtl-level loop optimizer cause performance degradation canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-13 11:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-14 15:33 ` canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn
15 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn @ 2005-07-14 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From canqun at nudt dot edu dot cn 2005-07-14 15:25 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Fixed.
Performance test on IA-64 recently show that loop unrolling with '-fweb' and '-
frename-registers" turned on can take nearly the same effectiveness as with
the giv splitting.
Very thanks to Steven Bosscher, Zdenek Dvorak, Andrew Pinski, and all other
GCC developers.
Canqun Yang
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20376
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread