From: Ajit Agarwal <aagarwa1@linux.ibm.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>,
Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>,
jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ree: Default ree pass for O2 and above for rs6000 target.
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:07:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c44e9173-f8e5-b539-521f-d8d99ad6c3d7@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230419200011.GG19790@gate.crashing.org>
Hello Segher:
On 20/04/23 1:30 am, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The subject should be something like
>
> rs6000: Enable REE pass by default
>
> (and no period at the end).
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:23:07PM +0530, Ajit Agarwal wrote:
>> This is the patch-1 for improving ree pass for rs6000 target.
>
> It actually just enables it :-)
> he c
> The mail body should be the proposed commit message. Nothing more,
> nothing less. If you need (or want) to talk about more things, that is
> what a "0/4" message is for (you create that with --cover). Your patch
> messages here do not thread properly, how did you create them? Things
> work fine if you use git format-patch --thread :-)
>
>> ree: Improve ree pass for rs6000 target.
>>
>> Add ree pass as a default pass for rs6000 target.
>>
>> 2023-04-19 Ajit Kumar Agarwal <aagarwa1@linux.ibm.com>
>
> You aren't in MAINTAINERS yet, please fix that first!
>
>>
Done. Already added Write after approval in MAINTAINERS and pushed the changes.
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * common/config/rs6000/rs6000-common.cc: Add REE pass as a
>> default rs6000 target pass for O2 and above.
>
> Why only for -O2? Only when optimising at all makes sense, people use
> -O0 only when they want to skip as many optimisations as possible, maybe
> because of compilation time concerns, maybe to avoid an ICE or other
> bug. Isn't REE *always* a good thing, it never degrades code quality?
> Or are there situations where it results in worse code?
>
I think it should be O2 and above and am not sure how it behaves with O0.
According to me, REE is always a good optimization to have and I don't think it degrades any performance or code quality. I don't see any situation where it results in worse code. It tries to remove extensions and combine them which will surely improves performance and code quality instead of worsening the code.
Thanks & Regards
Ajit
> Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-22 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-19 17:53 Ajit Agarwal
2023-04-19 20:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2023-04-22 13:37 ` Ajit Agarwal [this message]
2023-04-24 15:23 ` Peter Bergner
2023-04-24 15:28 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-24 15:36 ` Peter Bergner
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=c44e9173-f8e5-b539-521f-d8d99ad6c3d7@linux.ibm.com \
--to=aagarwa1@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bergner@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/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).