Hi, On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> Which would leave us with a lowering stage early in the main > >> optimization pipeline - I think fold_builtins pass is way too late > >> but any "folding" pass will do (like forwprop or backprop where the > >> latter might be better because it might end up computing FP "ranges" > >> to improve the initial lowering code). > > > > This isn't at all related to what backprop is doing though. backprop > > is about optimising definitions based on information about all uses. Right, I think backprop would be even worse than call_cdce, that pass has a completely different structure. > >> Of course call_cdce is as good as long as it still exists. > > > > Does this meann that you're not against the patch in principle (i.e. > > keeping call_cdce for now and extending it in the way that this patch > > does)? > > Yes, I'm fine with extending call_cdce. Of course I'd happily approve a > patch dissolving it into somewhere where it makes more sense. But this > shouldn't block this patch. Okay, I like merging passes, so I'll try to do that, once the stuff is in :) Ciao, Michael.
