https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #29 from Tejas Belagod <belagod at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #28) > On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, belagod at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679 > > > > --- Comment #27 from Tejas Belagod <belagod at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > We'd want to scalarize this early preferably in SRA as it gives a chance to > > passes like vectorization to vectorize more loops. I checked that > > sra-max-scalarization-Osize{-Ospeed} had no effect on scalarizing 'a = > > *.LC0' > > because SRA can't scalarize 'a = *.LC0'. But yes, ideally we'd change > gimplification to never decompose initializers but have SRA do it. > But that's of course not a GCC 5 thing. > > It has the advantage of splitting the initialization only when it is > (likely) profitable and otherwise leave it to the target to decide > how to expand the initialization (and it opens up the possibility > to directly use a constant-pool entry if the data is readonly). Which cost function(s) control this profitability of early splitting?
