From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11102 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2011 17:39:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11094 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2011 17:39:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (HELO mail-qy0-f182.google.com) (209.85.216.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:39:31 +0000 Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38so2413492qyk.20 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.182.67 with SMTP id cb3mr1216718qab.276.1311961170043; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lorien.watson.ibm.com (yktgi01e0-s4.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.23]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eb3sm1106230qab.14.2011.07.29.10.39.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E32F04F.20208@naturalbridge.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:57:00 -0000 From: Kenneth Zadeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Bonzini CC: Dimitrios Apostolou , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Steven Bosscher , seongbae.park@gmail.com, Manolis Marazakis Subject: Re: [DF] [performance] generate DF_REF_BASE REFs in REGNO order References: <4E32ED2F.3070105@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <4E32ED2F.3070105@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg02707.txt.bz2 were these tested on any platform aside from x86? On 07/29/2011 01:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/29/2011 07:23 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: >> >> 2011-07-29 Dimitrios Apostolou >> Paolo Bonzini >> >> (df_def_record_1): Assert a parallel must contain an >> EXPR_LIST at >> this point. Receive the LOC and move its extraction... >> (df_defs_record): ... here. Rewrote logic with a switch >> statement >> instead of multiple if-else. >> (df_find_hard_reg_defs, df_find_hard_reg_defs_1): New functions >> that duplicate the logic of df_defs_record() and df_def_record_1() >> but without actually recording any DEFs, only marking them in >> the defs HARD_REG_SET. >> (df_get_call_refs): Call df_find_hard_reg_defs() to mark DEFs that >> are the result of the call. Record DF_REF_BASE DEFs in REGNO >> order. Use regs_invalidated_by_call HARD_REG_SET instead of >> regs_invalidated_by_call_regset bitmap. >> (df_insn_refs_collect): Record DF_REF_REGULAR DEFs after >> df_get_call_refs(). > > Ok for mainline. I will commit it for you after rebootstrapping (just > to be safe). > >> P.S. maraz: that's 4.3% improvement in instruction count, should you >> start worrying or is it too late? > > Now I'm curious! > > Paolo