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: [PING^3][PATCH] Enable tree-level complete peeling with -fpeel-loops

From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:53:22 +0100
Subject: Re: [PING^3][PATCH] Enable tree-level complete peeling with -fpeel-loops
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503210941420.6707-100000@alwazn.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503210739150.493-100000@www.eyesopen.com>

Hello,

> > Please consider
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01311.html
> >
> >> 2005-Jan-20  Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@uni-tuebingen.de>
> >>
> >>	* tree-ssa-loop.c (gate_tree_complete_unroll): Run
> >>	complete unrolling if -fpeel-loops is specified, too.
> >>	tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c (try_unroll_loop_completely):
> >>	Remove superfluous and bogous check for flag_unroll_loops.
> 
> Apart from the formating of the date in the ChangeLog entry, the
> patch itself looks reasonable.  However, I'm uncertain how this
> fits in with GCC's "loop optimization roadmap".  If Zdenek could
> confirm that this change is reasonable, then the patch is OK for
> mainline and the 4.0 branch.

I think the patch is OK.

Zdenek

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PING^3][PATCH] Enable tree-level complete peeling with -fpeel-loops
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- [PING^3][PATCH] Enable tree-level complete peeling with -fpeel-loops
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [PING^3][PATCH] Enable tree-level complete peeling with -fpeel-loops
  - From: Roger Sayle

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