This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [Patch PR44576]: Don't do further analysis if we could know prefetching is not benefitial
- From: "Fang, Changpeng" <Changpeng dot Fang at amd dot com>
- To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "uweigand at de dot ibm dot com" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 12:06:55 -0500
- Subject: RE: [Patch PR44576]: Don't do further analysis if we could know prefetching is not benefitial
- References: <D4C76825A6780047854A11E93CDE84D02F7769@SAUSEXMBP01.amd.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Am Freitag 09 Juli 2010, 03:15:26 schrieb Fang, Changpeng:
>> + /* FIXME: the time should be weighted by the probabilities of the blocks in
>> + the loop body. */
>> + time = tree_num_loop_insns (loop, &eni_time_weights);
>> + ahead = (PREFETCH_LATENCY + time - 1) / time;
>Here I sometimes get a division by zero.
That should not happen (time couldn't be zero). Would you please double check and give a testcase to show the problem