This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer

From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: "Roberto COSTA" <roberto dot costa at st dot com>
Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "GCC mailing list" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:21:08 +0200
Subject: Re: COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer
References: <451A6B85.2060604@st.com> <4aca3dc20609270604o850d2faje972e4075c3f4b5f@mail.gmail.com> <451A7AB9.3030800@st.com> <4aca3dc20609270917h3685fb8ct7fa78db0fe97ae9f@mail.gmail.com> <451B7A9D.6040105@lu.unisi.ch> <451B9B13.9070304@st.com>

On 9/28/06, Roberto COSTA <roberto.costa@st.com> wrote:

I understand there may be additional occasions (currently unexploited)
to generated COND_EXPRs, but why precisely do you expect unlowered
COND_EXPRs be potentially harmful?

They inhibit some control flow optimizations such as jump threading.

What do you mean by "tree combiner"?


A mythical, never completed pass that combines different GIMPLE
statements into a single new one, much like the combine pass on RTL.

Gr.
Steven

References:
- COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer
  - From: Roberto COSTA
- Re: COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer
  - From: Roberto COSTA
- Re: COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: COND_EXPRs in GIMPLE code and vectorizer
  - From: Roberto COSTA

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