On 8/9/19 2:51 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 8/9/19 2:13 PM, Michael Matz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote: >> >>> Of course I'm still afraid that the other code exists for a reason >>> (tuning/hack/whatever...). >>> >>> Note that with the patch we're now applying LOOP_ALIGN to L2 here: >>> if (a) >>> foo = bar; >>> L2: >>> blah; >>> >>> because there's a jump-around and a fallthru. >> >> Yeah, and I think that would be wrong. That's why the existing code (not >> sure about after the patch) does this only when L2 is reached by one edge >> much more often than by the other edges. >> >>> So I'm not sure we don't need to apply some condition on fallthru_count >>> (which is unused after your patch btw). >> >> >> Ciao, >> Michael. >> > > I'm sending numbers for the opposite condition. > >> Of course I'm still afraid that the other code exists for a reason >> (tuning/hack/whatever...). > > I fully agree that the current code is quite hacking and was probably subject > of some tuning. > > I'm leaving the decision about simplification to you? > You're much more experienced in the area :) > > Martin >
@Honza: PING Martin
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
