From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jit-return-774-listarch-jit=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 33721 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2015 07:38:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:jit@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jit-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:jit-subscribe@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 33707 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2015 07:38:42 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.98.7 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-HELO: mail-yk0-f181.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=Zpqrgfl0ksd12WOrUriKZ8u5NWJ3XVKs2cRUV+EUqQw=;
        b=IQ3kpLA17WjDx9LpVO2zpYQl0N3X0ZY8E2AlcbAYabEKxYuqeM7bNmMrWp8DTTj/tb
         ou98lR7QPeABgc18kzn1jhh6jogPz4/LRXQ3F7hOyjBaa0GiVqmNK+vWyP0UxPWKuufC
         l6Op8Ka3IEYcIu/70Yer3aaIJ9b6YvSv26AgXDl95GIAXqjXPR6jaMAGehdDAwNG03cB
         Q4PyD7N890uNN4TeD9b8+y9tvJa3Eusk+ETezRy0hC/w65lsQLIaA7IK0Jl/nXdPwCL2
         zb85RoR3cDAEh3OZieoiFhcoqexRdW7kYvRhTY47OjGGTHBOcNQA7Jj5Oz8dRYjDLS30
         uKbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQTaN0aNQ0FkxDQ/4e2KAX+cSmH1YZcyYyHfeGUMRU0nW8vM1iQgFBwQGhrym8Be4F8sQ5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.204.142 with SMTP id o136mr22454532ywd.171.1436513918673;
 Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1436489129.24803.174.camel@surprise>
References: <CACXZuxc3z92zKFWhNBU4a0LDxhyNRiZcbMf83HVYkOn-7CScDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACXZuxfKRkEzSjzPCvpSvL0EcryEofyL-xjgJLxByNQDNpBjTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACXZuxez_fzRYnmZ-traUo2uOr5fU4kC3VrEbWYC8UWDnvEa_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACXZuxfb+OOW6Mc4GPBfUaE4VSAhOmy=f1KCXxLmXq=Mw7DdyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1436365266.24803.65.camel@surprise>
	<1436367926.24803.71.camel@surprise>
	<1436369443.24803.75.camel@surprise>
	<1436377619.24803.97.camel@surprise>
	<CACXZuxdi+M+Ttgszi9hqDvT1V-NrQKxD3dTM6TOO2m3dzaz34g@mail.gmail.com>
	<1436382217.24803.101.camel@surprise>
	<CACXZuxcj_CRjOUy6TfexL9S9TmVRUB1Zpd9J8-Awj4ritUUbFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1436385256.24803.107.camel@surprise>
	<CACXZuxcs0Zex=jsRubnNZ+HXPORULn8_j4vH4aw1tNnmJrErhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACXZuxcbfdAmsvcLx_nFC3PynjcDBTgF1D=tZnHaJtF1_jfpPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1436469764.24803.156.camel@surprise>
	<1436476508.24803.168.camel@surprise>
	<1436477075.24803.171.camel@surprise>
	<CACXZuxf=dh5k78Nwi5Y_VSUZbNLYw3BiMvrmt237vz-a3ChBAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1436484627.24803.173.camel@surprise>
	<CACXZuxfemEhP2_mpvXCkLCZn3RXJGDvRTvcAhBYJawGAJ2C-qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACXZuxd=rnb7jb=5Uy3Hdz2YcydtfOYbKvRB2XH20aVnazReMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1436489129.24803.174.camel@surprise>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CACXZuxdWi-ZfHwK4Pa-mdbuBiX9zpzpvVbPeFVH9qqF5+8eFGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR jit/66812: Candidate fix for for the code generation
 issue, v1
From: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
Cc: jit@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2

On 10 July 2015 at 01:45, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>> however performance degraded similar to when
>> -fno-strict-aliasing is used.
>
> Bother.  What kind of numbers are we talking about?
>

I will post some numbers tonight.

I am beginning to think that using unions was not a good idea - I
should do it the way I implement the LLVM version - i.e. use a struct
and emulate the union functionality. I think unions are just hard for
the optimizer to reason about.

Unfortunately this means a bit of rework - so I won't know if the
struct approach is better until after I have done the changes and
compared results.

Regards
Dibyendu