Hopelessly broken loop_father, loop_depth

Richard Guenther richard.guenther@gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 13:47:00 GMT 2012

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Richard Guenther
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wonder why we cache loop-depth at all ... given that it is a "simple"
>> dereference bb->loop_father->superloops->base.prefix.num.  For all
>> the hassle to keep that cache up-to-date, that is.
> The cached bb->loop_depth saves two indirect references. But if it's
> hard to maintain, I'd be happy to see it go away. Just so long as
> bb->loop_father is correct (to be verified by a patch for the loop
> verification code).

loop_father is easier to keep up-to-date at least, and possibly should
just work.
A patch removing loop_depth just finished testing and I'll commit it in a sec.


> Ciao!
> Steven

More information about the Gcc mailing list