From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: "William J. Schmidt" <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Address lowering [1/3] Main patch
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:22:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc0JjZLhqNEmnfgsrVN3X6X-7L4oGe=mN4kLmEe3N1aP4g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1309444782.26980.52.camel@oc2474580526.ibm.com>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, William J. Schmidt
<wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> This is the first of three patches related to lowering addressing
> expressions to MEM_REFs and TARGET_MEM_REFs in late gimple. This patch
> contains the new pass together with supporting changes in existing
> modules. The second patch contains an independent change to the RTL
> forward propagator to keep it from undoing an optimization made in the
> first patch. The third patch contains new test cases and changes to
> existing test cases.
>
> Although I've broken it up into three patches to make the review easier,
> it would be best to commit at least the first and third together to
> avoid regressions. The second can stand alone.
>
> I've done regression tests on powerpc64 and x86_64, and have asked
> Andreas Krebbel to test against the IBM z (390) platform. I've done
> performance regression testing on powerpc64. The only performance
> regression of note is the 2% degradation to 188.ammp due to loss of
> field disambiguation information. As discussed in another thread,
> fixing this introduces more complexity than it's worth.
Are there also performance improvements? What about code size?
I tried to get an understanding to what kind of optimizations this patch
produces based on the test of testcases you added, but I have a hard
time here. Can you outline some please?
I still do not like the implementation of yet another CSE machinery
given that we already have two. I think most of the need for CSE
comes from the use of the affine combination framework and
force_gimple_operand. In fact I'd be interested to see cases that
are optimized that could not be handled by a combine-like
pattern matcher?
Thanks,
Richard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-04 14:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-30 14:51 William J. Schmidt
2011-07-04 14:22 ` Richard Guenther [this message]
2011-07-04 15:30 ` Michael Matz
2011-07-05 14:08 ` William J. Schmidt
2011-07-05 14:26 ` Michael Matz
2011-07-05 17:08 ` William J. Schmidt
2011-07-08 14:11 ` William J. Schmidt
2011-07-05 14:06 ` William J. Schmidt
2011-07-06 13:22 ` Richard Guenther
2011-07-06 14:37 ` William J. Schmidt
2011-07-06 15:02 ` Richard Guenther
2011-07-20 0:46 ` William J. Schmidt
2011-07-20 9:53 ` Richard Guenther
2011-07-20 13:38 ` William J. Schmidt
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='CAFiYyc0JjZLhqNEmnfgsrVN3X6X-7L4oGe=mN4kLmEe3N1aP4g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.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).