public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>,
	<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>,
	Julian Brown	<julian@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [gomp4] Preserve NVPTX "reconvergence" points
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <558814DD.2050502@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150619134529.GP10247@tucnak.redhat.com>

On 06/19/2015 03:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I actually believe having some optimization passes in between the ompexp
> and the lowering of the IR into the form PTX wants is highly desirable,
> the form with the worker-single or vector-single mode lowered will contain
> too complex CFG for many optimizations to be really effective, especially
> if it uses abnormal edges.  E.g. inlining supposedly would have harder job
> etc.  What exact unpredictable effects do you fear?

Mostly the ones I can't predict. But let's take one example, LICM: let's 
say you pull some assignment out of a loop, then you find yourself in 
one of two possible situations: either it's become not actually 
available inside the loop (because the data and control flow is not 
described correctly and the compiler doesn't know what's going on), or, 
to avoid that, you introduce additional broadcasting operations when 
entering the loop, which might be quite expensive.


Bernd

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-22 14:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-28 14:20 Julian Brown
2015-05-28 14:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-05-28 15:14   ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-05-28 15:28     ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-19 10:44       ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-19 12:32         ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-19 13:07           ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-19 14:10             ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 14:04               ` Bernd Schmidt [this message]
2015-06-22 14:25                 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-24 13:37               ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-24 14:08                 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 14:00           ` Julian Brown
2015-06-22 14:36             ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 15:18               ` Julian Brown
2015-06-22 15:33               ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-22 16:13                 ` Nathan Sidwell
2015-06-22 16:27                   ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 16:35                     ` Nathan Sidwell
2015-06-22 17:54               ` Julian Brown
2015-06-22 18:48                 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-05-28 15:02 ` Richard Biener
2015-06-03 11:47   ` Julian Brown

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=558814DD.2050502@codesourcery.com \
    --to=bernds@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=julian@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=nathan@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=thomas@codesourcery.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).