From: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dnovillo@google.com
Subject: Re: Continue stmt branch prediction
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080319112008.GA16554@kam.mff.cuni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000803190356p241cf5d5l83a80d13d79c9bfe@mail.gmail.com>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This patch may have caused
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35636
> >
> > Yes, the testcase needs adjusting (with PREDICT_EXPR sitting in, there
> > are no longer perfectly nested loops, but a butterfly CFG). I will look
> > into it.
>
> PREDICT_EXPRs should not cause such effect (I still think they are
> ugly, but you made your point that BB or edge flags won't work).
If you have
loopback:
if (test1)
goto loopback;
if (test2)
goto loopback;
You have two perfectly nested loops. Now
loopback:
if (test1)
{
somecode;
goto loopback;
}
somecode;
if (test2)
goto loopback;
You have two sibbling loops sharing header block. The testcase is about
how loop infrastructure disambiguate the first case. With predict_expr
in, we handle prediction more realistically (realizing that the test1 is
probably not closing loop construct since it comes from continue), but
disambiguation does not happen.
I will look into the other two cases tested by testcase but I think they
are same. I think it is best to convert the inner loop into do-while
so it will still test the same.
Honza
>
> Richard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-19 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-09 20:59 Jan Hubicka
2008-02-10 14:00 ` Diego Novillo
2008-02-10 15:49 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-02-11 2:51 ` Diego Novillo
2008-02-11 8:21 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-02-11 22:42 ` Andrew MacLeod
2008-02-14 15:31 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-02-14 15:38 ` Richard Guenther
2008-02-14 17:49 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-02-14 18:27 ` Andrew MacLeod
2008-02-14 19:12 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-02-14 15:45 ` Andrew MacLeod
2008-02-14 18:11 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-03-05 18:33 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-03-05 22:10 ` Diego Novillo
2008-03-05 22:28 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-03-12 17:54 ` Diego Novillo
2008-03-13 1:38 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-03-13 1:41 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-03-13 9:21 ` Richard Guenther
2008-03-13 14:12 ` Diego Novillo
2008-03-19 6:33 ` H.J. Lu
2008-03-19 11:25 ` Jan Hubicka
2008-03-19 11:37 ` Richard Guenther
2008-03-19 11:45 ` Jan Hubicka [this message]
2008-03-19 13:21 ` Richard Guenther
2008-02-20 22:53 Bradley Lucier
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=20080319112008.GA16554@kam.mff.cuni.cz \
--to=jh@suse.cz \
--cc=dnovillo@google.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/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).