This is the mail archive of the 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: RFC: Patch for switch elimination (PR 54742)

On 08/14/14 10:12, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/14/14 04:32, Richard Biener wrote:
You'll note in a separate thread Steve and I discussed this during Cauldron
and it was at my recommendation Steve resurrected his proof of concept
plugin and started beating it into shape.

But do we really want a pass just to help coremark?
And that's the biggest argument against Steve's work.  In theory it
should be applicable to other FSMs, but nobody's come forth with
additional testcases from real world applications.

Maybe a regex library?  Perhaps: ?
The key is that at least some states tell you at compile time what state you'll be in during the next loop iteration. Thus instead of coming around the loop, evaluating the switch condition, then doing the multi-way branch, we just directly jump to the case for the next iteration.

I've never looked at the PCRE code to know if it's got cases like that.


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