This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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] Don't schedule prefetch insns - take 2

From: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:07:56 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't schedule prefetch insns - take 2
References: <20090902143325.GA17856@bart> <84fc9c000909020750ob5ad8c3q1475320903aca4cf@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Richard,

That would fix case 3, yes? I think its a reasonable approach for that.

That patch itself does not distingiush between cases 1, 2 and 3 but it allows to decide the cases separately. A follow-on patch for S/390 which adds prefetch insns for memcpy loops sets the volatile flag for them. So that would be 3. then :)

-Andreas-

References:
- [PATCH] Don't schedule prefetch insns - take 2
  - From: Andreas Krebbel
- Re: [PATCH] Don't schedule prefetch insns - take 2
  - From: Richard Guenther

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