On 06/21/2016 08:47 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:52:35PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 06/20/2016 12:22 PM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
In theory I would expect if anything this helps performance since it isn't
necessary to malloc every time a node is added, however the data is less clear.
Well, we have alloc pools for these lists, so a malloc is not needed for
every node.
its true, and lists.c has its own special cache, but still it is more
than storing a pointer and incrementing the length I expect.
Yea, it's got that cache. IIRC that was a fairly minor optimization. I
wouldn't lose any sleep if it went away. IIRC it was to reduce the cost
of the lists we build up and tear down gcse.c. It may have even been
limited to load/store motion, in which case I really don't think the
cache is all that important.
jeff
