> 3. ifcvt computes the sum of costs for the involved blocks, but only
> makes a before/after comparison when optimizing for size. When
> optimizing for speed, it uses max_seq_cost, which is an estimate
> computed from BRANCH_COST, which in turn can be zero for predictable
> branches on x86.
Can you please correct the addition below? It makes me cry thinking
that buggy function will be immortalized in the gcc testsuite...
> +static inline u128 add_u128 (u128 a, u128 b)
> +{
a.hi += b.hi;
> + a.lo += b.lo;
> + if (a.lo < b.lo)
> + a.hi++;
> +
> + return a;
Uros.
