From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove basic_block->loop_depth
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:51:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1208141243060.28649@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201208141016.q7EAGHMF012074@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Accessing loop_depth (bb->loop_father) isn't very expensive. The
> > following removes the duplicate info in basic-blocks which is not
> > properly kept up-to-date at the moment.
>
> Looks like this broke SPU build, since spu_machine_dependent_reorg
> accesses ->loop_depth. According to comments in the code, this
> was done because of concerns that loop_father may no longer be set up
> this late in compilation, so I'm wondering whether just replacing
> this by loop_depth (bb->loop_father) would work here ...
Well, if loops are no longer set up (thus ->loop_father is NULL) then
the loop_depth information was stale and possibly wrong.
> /* If this branch is a loop exit then propagate to previous
> fallthru block. This catches the cases when it is a simple
> loop or when there is an initial branch into the loop. */
> if (prev && (loop_exit || simple_loop)
> && prev->loop_depth <= bb->loop_depth)
> prop = prev;
>
> /* If there is only one adjacent predecessor. Don't propagate
> outside this loop. This loop_depth test isn't perfect, but
> I'm not sure the loop_father member is valid at this point. */
> else if (prev && single_pred_p (bb)
> && prev->loop_depth == bb->loop_depth)
> prop = prev;
>
> Any suggestions?
If SPU md reorg would like to look at loop structures it should
compute them. Simply call flow_loops_find, which hopefully works
in CFG RTL mode (which I think is the mode available from md reorg?).
I was simply throwing away loops after RTL loop optimizers not only
because IRA for some weird reason decides to re-compute them in
non-standard ways and because loop verification fails between
ira / reload passes. So the other way would be to preserve loops
for a longer period.
Richard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-14 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-13 13:02 Richard Guenther
2012-08-14 10:16 ` Ulrich Weigand
2012-08-14 10:51 ` Richard Guenther [this message]
2012-08-14 11:00 ` Steven Bosscher
2012-08-14 11:01 ` Richard Guenther
2012-08-15 12:04 ` [rfc] Fix SPU build (Re: [PATCH] Remove basic_block->loop_depth) Ulrich Weigand
2012-08-15 12:07 ` Richard Guenther
2012-08-15 22:18 ` Ulrich Weigand
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=alpine.LNX.2.00.1208141243060.28649@zhemvz.fhfr.qr \
--to=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=uweigand@de.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).