Re: Low overhead looping support

[Jeffrey A Law <law at hurl dot cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19990219202441.B17904@cygnus.com>you write:
  > On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 01:58:21AM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > > of enclosed loops?  Did I misread something.  Note it doesn't look like
  > > you called it pattern in your patch.
  > 
  > Huh?  He's just passing in the loop nesting depth to d_a_b_o_c.
Parse error on my part.  Somehow I read that as a new argument, named
pattern.


  > > Any specific reason not to pass the iteration count (either as a constant
  > >  rtx or an varying rtx if it isn't constant) to a branch_on_count
  > > expander?  I'd like to see some discussion about the pros/cons for each
  > > approach.
  > 
  > How would you envision this working?  The init goes at the beginning
  > of the loop and the branch_on_count goes at the end.
I guess that makes sense.  Presumably we add the insn before the jump to the
loop test for loops where we have not removed that jump.    Right Michael?

jeff