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: [PATCH] Fix PR34263: Cleaning up latch blocks

From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
To: Revital1 Eres <ERES at il dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Ayal Zaks <zaks at il dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Mircea Namolaru <namolaru at il dot ibm dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:13:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR34263: Cleaning up latch blocks
References: <OF8DCFA49C.7B09668C-ONC22573B1.003BAFF1-C22573B1.003D997B@il.ibm.com>

Revital1 Eres wrote:

Should there be some kind of limit to the number of copies being inserted? Ie, if there are 10 copies being inserted on the edge, I would think 10 extra copies in the loop would tend to start adding up and offset whatever gain you might get.
That sounds reasonable, I can add a default number to consider only small
latches. (and maybe add a new --param option to tune it?)

I dont know if we need another --param or not, I'd be just as content to start with a small guess. I would think most of the cases you see that matter have 1 or 2 stmts?

Andrew

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR34263: Cleaning up latch blocks
  - From: Revital1 Eres

References:
- re:[PATCH] Fix PR34263: Cleaning up latch blocks
  - From: Revital1 Eres

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