This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Resubmission of new implementation of SRA
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:35:48 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Resubmission of new implementation of SRA
- References: <email@example.com> <alpine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090529165539.GE12889@virgil.suse.cz>
2009/5/29 Martin Jambor <email@example.com>:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 05:57:34PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > This is hopefully the final version of intraprocedural SRA, addressing
>> > all some ?comments from Richi's (some ?of which were sent ?only to me,
>> > but they are all minor). ?The previous post is here:
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01628.html
>> > The biggest difference is ?that auxiliary statements generated to turn
>> > complex number and vector ?replacements which are not gimple registers
>> > into registers are created ?by force_gimple_operand_gsi rather than by
>> > functions of my own.
>> > Most ?notably, some ?unnecessary ?complex typecasting ?is removed ?and
>> > complex numbers which ?participate in an assignment into ?one of their
>> > components are dealt with by simply not making them a gimple register.
>> > The first ?patch is the ?new implementation itself. ?The ?second patch
>> > removes SRA parameters which are ?no longer used and the third adjusts
>> > the testsuite and adds new testcases.
>> > The whole ?patch set ?bootstraps on x86_64-linux-gnu ?(including Ada),
>> > and i586-suse-linux. ? There are no ?new regressions on both ?of these
>> > platforms.
>> > So, OK for trunk?
> Great, committed as revision 147980.