This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch] for PR19401

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:

> Hello,
> following the discussions on the gcc mailing list, there is another
> proposal for the fix for this PR:
> 1) Always unroll loop completely if it does not cause code growth
>    (of course this is heuristics only, so it may be possible to
>    construct examples where the code size is increased, but it should
>    not be common).
> 2) Enables complete unrolling of all loops at -O3 and with -fpeel-loops.

Ok, this certainly solves my problems in a way I do anyway with gcc 3.4.

Is it possible to schedule another sra pass after loop only if we
completely unrolled some loop in a function?  This would maybe help
PR18754 and should be not too intrusive if it can be conditionalized
on a previously completely unrolled loop.  But of course this works
only if we go through all passes per-function (or BB) -- do we?

Can you comment on
which is originally your patch, still suitable for 3.4?


Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]