This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] cfg.texi needs reviewing by a native speaker (Was: Re: "Documentation by paper")
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dnovillo at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:08:39 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] cfg.texi needs reviewing by a native speaker (Was: Re: "Documentation by paper")
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20040209223920.GP20341@kam.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka writes:
>In the mainline summary for perl 0.3% of executed branches with 80%
>accuracy, so it shall not make things worse, but probably not
>significantly better either.
>> And it would seem to me that the looping predictors should be independent
>> of the gimplification code. Can you explain why they are not?
>They are using the continue hints and also know that copied loop headers
One more note -- there are no "continues" in the code I'm working with :-)