On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 10:49 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote: > > > Hi Richard, > > > > Here's a revision incorporating changes addressing your comments. As > > before it passes bootstrap and regression testing on powerpc64-linux-gnu > > and compiles SPEC cpu2000 and cpu2006 with identical cost model > > results. > > > > Before committing the patch I would remove the two gcc_asserts that > > verify the cost models match. I think a follow-up patch should then fix > > Will you also remove the then "dead" code computing the old cost? I think > it's odd to have a state committed where we compute both but only > use one ... > > > the costs that appear to be incorrectly not counted by the old model (by > > un-commenting-out the two chunks of code identified in the patch). I'd > > want to verify this doesn't cause any bad changes of behavior, since it > > could result in fewer vectorized loops. > > > > Ok for trunk? > > ... so I'd say yes, ok for trunk, but please wait until you have > figured out that the followup "fixing" the existing bugs by commenting > out the code works and that another followup removing the old cost > stuff works (which I am confident in that both will work). > > Which means we'd eventually have a single commit doing these three > things (or three adjacent commits).
OK, sounds like a plan. Today's a holiday here, so I'll probably hold off committing anything until after Cauldron. Thanks, Bill > > Thanks, > Richard.
