From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] regrename: Don't run if function was separately shrink-wrapped
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fbbf95e2-055d-fb52-0c57-9b9ecc64a994@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160914191037.GB22273@gate.crashing.org>
On 09/14/2016 01:10 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:52:02AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Yea, it'll certainly do that and I can imagine a design which would have
>> that property. And there's other designs which benefit from spreading
>> across the register file as much as possible.
>>
>> Which argues there needs to be a way to tune or disable the pass.
>
> Yes, some targets want it, and some don't. It seems to me that targets
> that use sched1 have much less benefit from regrename. Of course enabling
> sched1 has its own problems.
I think that sched1 would decrease the benefit of reg renaming, but
wouldn't totally eliminate the desire to avoid anti dependencies created
by register allocation.
jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-14 19:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-08 1:48 [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:48 ` [PATCH 1/9] separate shrink-wrap: New command-line flag, status flag, hooks, and doc Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:48 ` [PATCH 2/9] cfgcleanup: Don't confuse CFI when -fshrink-wrap-separate Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:48 ` [PATCH 3/9] dce: Don't dead-code delete separately wrapped restores Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:53 ` [PATCH 6/9] sel-sched: Don't mess with register restores Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:53 ` [PATCH 4/9] regrename: Don't rename restores Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:54 ` [PATCH 7/9] cprop: Leave RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P instructions alone Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:54 ` [PATCH 5/9] regrename: Don't run if function was separately shrink-wrapped Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 9:18 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-09 18:41 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-09 20:56 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-09 23:12 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-10 6:59 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-12 16:36 ` Jeff Law
[not found] ` <CAGWvny=fHHZtKF4_D2098+3PTPPzxtg3EjKDWHyJwUxz8g_tEA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAGWvnymZVg_FR_PHqhwkgrAkHDntVMEiG4shfst_GA9OnZKvWg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAGWvnykQ3oz0UpcF6U1WYivbJww65h2EH5n3FocQ8JGY9hrOrA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-09-12 17:04 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 13:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 13:18 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-14 14:01 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 14:54 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-14 16:33 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 19:10 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 17:55 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 19:13 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 19:36 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2016-09-14 18:21 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 19:13 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 19:38 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 22:34 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-15 17:28 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-19 17:11 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 20:04 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 22:51 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 2:03 ` [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate concerns Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-15 12:42 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-18 16:34 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-18 17:03 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-19 14:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-19 14:49 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-19 15:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-20 11:23 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-20 15:06 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 2:04 ` [PATCH 9/9] rs6000: Separate shrink-wrapping Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 11:56 ` [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-08 12:45 ` Eric Botcazou
2016-06-08 15:16 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 16:43 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-08 17:26 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-29 23:06 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-29 23:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-04 8:57 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-14 21:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-08 10:42 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-08 12:11 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-08 13:16 ` David Malcolm
2016-07-08 13:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-08 14:35 ` Bill Schmidt
2016-06-09 16:12 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-09 19:57 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-28 0:22 ` PING " Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-07 10:16 ` PING x2 " Segher Boessenkool
2016-08-01 1:43 [PATCH v2 0/9] Separate shrink-wrapping Segher Boessenkool
2016-08-01 2:12 ` [PATCH 5/9] regrename: Don't run if function was separately shrink-wrapped Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-08 17:54 ` Jeff Law
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=fbbf95e2-055d-fb52-0c57-9b9ecc64a994@redhat.com \
--to=law@redhat.com \
--cc=bschmidt@redhat.com \
--cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--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).