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] Re: [RFC, ivopts] fix bugs in ivopts address cost computation

From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "William J. Schmidt" <wschmidt at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:39:37 -0600
Subject: Re: [PING] Re: [RFC, ivopts] fix bugs in ivopts address cost computation
References: <4FCE3512.7070607@codesourcery.com> <4FF470EE.1070105@codesourcery.com> <CAFiYyc1gEEBRuSXJ9nOxuoDJOzRVAnKBquCAC4hnELCXZHDW5A@mail.gmail.com>

On 07/17/2012 05:22 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com>  wrote:

Ping? Original post with patch is here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00319.html


Can you update the patch and numbers based on what Bill did for
straight-line strength reduction which re-uses this analysis/caching part?

I will try to take another look at this once Bill has finished his work that touches on this; it's been hard for me to track a moving target. I was wondering if it might be more consistent with Bill's work to defer some of the address cost computation to new target hooks, after all.

-Sandra

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PING] Re: [RFC, ivopts] fix bugs in ivopts address cost computation
  - From: William J. Schmidt

References:
- [PING] Re: [RFC, ivopts] fix bugs in ivopts address cost computation
  - From: Sandra Loosemore
- Re: [PING] Re: [RFC, ivopts] fix bugs in ivopts address cost computation
  - From: Richard Guenther

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