public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
[not found] <bug-22041-10391@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2006-02-27 14:06 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-28 14:10 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-27 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-27 14:06 -------
Dunno if tree loop reversal is already there, but Zdenek probably likes to know
what bugs he is fixing...
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
[not found] <bug-22041-10391@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-02-27 14:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-28 14:10 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-28 14:25 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-06-05 21:36 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-28 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-28 14:10 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Dunno if tree loop reversal is already there, but Zdenek probably likes to know
> what bugs he is fixing...
Loop reversal doesn't occur yet.
gcc version 4.2.0 20060521 (experimental) gives us:
L4:
movl (%ecx), %eax
addl $1, %ebx
addl %edi, %ecx
movl %eax, (%edx)
addl %esi, %edx
cmpl 16(%ebp), %ebx
jne L4
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-24 20:30:10 |2006-05-28 14:10:44
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
[not found] <bug-22041-10391@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-02-27 14:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-28 14:10 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-28 14:25 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-06-05 21:36 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2006-05-28 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2006-05-28 14:25 -------
Subject: Re: Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
> ------- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-28 14:10 -------
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Dunno if tree loop reversal is already there, but Zdenek probably likes to know
> > what bugs he is fixing...
>
> Loop reversal doesn't occur yet.
>
> gcc version 4.2.0 20060521 (experimental) gives us:
>
> L4:
> movl (%ecx), %eax
> addl $1, %ebx
> addl %edi, %ecx
> movl %eax, (%edx)
> addl %esi, %edx
> cmpl 16(%ebp), %ebx
> jne L4
loop reversal was removed with the old loop optimizer; the tree level
loop reversal patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01851.html) was not
reviewed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
[not found] <bug-22041-10391@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-05-28 14:25 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2006-06-05 21:36 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-06-05 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-05 21:30 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> loop reversal was removed with the old loop optimizer; the tree level
> loop reversal patch
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01851.html) was not
> reviewed.
Does this make this PR a regresion (technically)?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
[not found] <bug-22041-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-12-30 12:29 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-17 17:13 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-03 18:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-03 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |stefan at franke dot ms
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 99364 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
[not found] <bug-22041-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-12-30 12:29 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-03-17 17:13 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-03 18:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-03-17 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2010-12-30 12:00:00 |2013-03-17 12:00
Known to fail| |4.9.0
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-17 17:13:24 UTC ---
Still isn't implemented on current trunk.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
[not found] <bug-22041-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2010-12-30 12:29 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-17 17:13 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-03 18:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2010-12-30 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2006-05-28 14:10:44 |2010-12-30 12:00
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-30 12:29:14 UTC ---
This is still an issue with current trunk -
stride.c gives worse code than stride-2.c with -O2.
Specifying -fivopts doesn't make a difference. This is for
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
2005-06-12 20:57 [Bug tree-optimization/22041] New: " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-12 23:44 ` [Bug tree-optimization/22041] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-07 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-07 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-07 23:42 -------
IIRC loop.c does the reversal so we need to move to the tree level.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency
2005-06-12 20:57 [Bug tree-optimization/22041] New: " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-06-12 23:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-07 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-06-12 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-12 23:44 -------
Confirmed, on ppc-darwin we do reverse the loop and we use the do-loop patterns:
L4:
lfsx f0,r2,r4
add r2,r2,r7
stfsx f0,r3,r0
add r0,r0,r6
bdnz L4
L11:
lfsx f0,r2,r4
add r2,r2,r7
stfsx f0,r3,r0
add r0,r0,r6
bdnz L11
So we could improve for x86.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-12 23:44:37
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22041
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-03-03 18:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-22041-10391@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-02-27 14:06 ` [Bug tree-optimization/22041] Reverse loop order for increased efficiency steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-28 14:10 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-28 14:25 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-06-05 21:36 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-22041-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-12-30 12:29 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-03-17 17:13 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-03 18:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2005-06-12 20:57 [Bug tree-optimization/22041] New: " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-06-12 23:44 ` [Bug tree-optimization/22041] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-07 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).