public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/98598] Missed opportunity to optimize dependent loads in loops
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 10:42:51 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-98598-4-SPgj8nBVx9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-98598-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598

--- Comment #7 from Jiangning Liu <jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #6)
> On January 9, 2021 4:17:17 AM GMT+01:00, "jiangning.liu at amperecomputing
> dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98598
> >
> >--- Comment #5 from Jiangning Liu <jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot
> >com> ---
> >> It has to be done with care of course, cost modeling is difficult
> >> (we need to have a good estimate of n and m or need to version
> >> the whole nest).  That said, usually we attempt the reverse
> >transform.
> >
> >Before tuning the cost model good enough, we may implement this
> >optimization by
> >adding a new optimization command line option. This won't hurt gcc,
> >right?
> 
> New options not enabled by default tend to bitrot, be broken from the start
> and won't be used by the lazy user. So I see no point in doing that. 
> 

Understand. I mean we can enable it by default eventually, but we need to
implement and tune it step by step. It is unrealistic to work out the best cost
model at the very beginning.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-09 10:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-08  8:24 [Bug tree-optimization/98598] New: " hliu at amperecomputing dot com
2021-01-08  8:43 ` [Bug tree-optimization/98598] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-08  9:15 ` jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
2021-01-08  9:55 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2021-01-08 11:57 ` amker at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-09  3:17 ` jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
2021-01-09  9:48 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2021-01-09 10:42 ` jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com [this message]
2021-01-11  7:17 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2021-01-11  9:16 ` crazylht at gmail dot com
2021-01-11 11:41 ` jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
2021-01-11 12:05 ` jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
2021-01-14 22:53 ` jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
2021-12-23  9:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-98598-4-SPgj8nBVx9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).