Low overhead looping support

Jeffrey A Law law@hurl.cygnus.com
Mon Feb 22 00:34:00 GMT 1999


  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


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list