Gimple loop splitting v2

Jeff Law
Thu Oct 20 19:17:00 GMT 2016

On 10/20/2016 08:43 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Nit.  I don't think you want a comma after "so".  And it looks like your
>> comment got truncated as well.
>> With the comment above fixed, this is fine for the trunk.
> I'm terribly sorry to have dropped the ball here, but I've committed this
> now after not even a year ;-/ (r241374)
It'd totally fallen off my radar.  I had to go find it in my archives :-).

  Obviously after rebootstrapping
> with all,ada languages.  I also did some benchmark run which should be
> taken with a grain of salt as the machine had fairly variant results but
> the improvements are real, though perhaps not always in that range (it's a
> normal three repeats run).  I'm really curious if our automatic tester can
> pick up similar improvements, because if so, it's extreme (5 to 15 percent
> in some benchmarks) and we can brag about it for GCC 7 ;-)
Yea.  I don't expect it applies that often and ISTM that it's probably 
most beneficial by enabling other stuff later in the loop optimizer 
pipeline to see more loops without embedded flow control.

ANyway, glad to see it go in.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list