From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 45526 invoked by alias); 6 May 2019 10:21:15 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 45472 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2019 10:21:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=discards, information!, finite, iv_var's X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 May 2019 10:21:14 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7178CACB8; Mon, 6 May 2019 10:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 10:21:00 -0000 From: Richard Biener To: "Kewen.Lin" cc: "Bin.Cheng" , Segher Boessenkool , GCC Patches , "bin.cheng" , Bill Schmidt , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC, rs6000] PR80791 Consider doloop in ivopts In-Reply-To: <43ad1524-3592-c2f4-57c4-a44795330658@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20190425121616.GS8599@gate.crashing.org> <351b6da4-48b5-2e34-493f-bdf709408b3f@linux.ibm.com> <43ad1524-3592-c2f4-57c4-a44795330658@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-1609908220-629422731-1557138071=:10704" X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1609908220-629422731-1557138071=:10704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-length: 891 On Sun, 5 May 2019, Kewen.Lin wrote: > on 2019/4/27 上午11:44, Bin.Cheng wrote: > > GCC lacks the capability passing information to later passes. Gimple > > analyzer worked hard collecting various information but discards it > > entering RTL or earlier. Other examples are like runtime alias > > information, non-wrapping information for specific operations, etc. > > IMHO, this is what needs to be done. As for this case, it could be > > finite loop info, or non-wrapping info of the iv_var's increment > > operation. By passing more information, RTL passes can be simplified > > too. > > > > Thanks for the information! Is there any under development work for this? > That would be fine if we can pass down those information to downstream > passes based on upcoming feature. GCC keeps several bits of information across passes, notably everything stored in struct loop. Richard. ---1609908220-629422731-1557138071=:10704--