This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [BENCHMARK] runtime impact of fix for target/17390 on i386 targets

From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 20 Oct 2005 09:43:17 -0700
Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] runtime impact of fix for target/17390 on i386 targets
References: <bug-17390-1649@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/><20051019131357.13048.qmail@sourceware.org><1129797952.43575940d06c0@ssl.kss-loka.si><7572744.1129799023070.SLOX.WebMail.wwwrun@imap-dhs.suse.de><5787cf470510200808j72e46878g41999b1ef9a8a6dc@mail.gmail.com>

Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> writes:

> There is no post-reload cse_condition_code_reg () pass, so perhaps we
> have to add one. A cse_condition_code_reg () walks all instructions by
> itself, so I'm not sure if some existing post-reload CSE pass could be
> enhanced.

The cse_condition_code_reg pass doesn't walk all the instructions.  It
walks the basic blocks, and looks at the last instruction in each
basic block.  When it finds an optimization opportunity, it looks at
more instructions, but usually only a few more.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [BENCHMARK] runtime impact of fix for target/17390 on i386 targets
  - From: Uros Bizjak

References:
- [BENCHMARK] runtime impact of fix for target/17390 on i386 targets
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- Re: [BENCHMARK] runtime impact of fix for target/17390 on i386 targets
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [BENCHMARK] runtime impact of fix for target/17390 on i386 targets
  - From: Uros Bizjak

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