On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wonder why we cache loop-depth at all ... given that it is a "simple" >> dereference bb->loop_father->superloops->base.prefix.num. For all >> the hassle to keep that cache up-to-date, that is. > > The cached bb->loop_depth saves two indirect references. But if it's > hard to maintain, I'd be happy to see it go away. Just so long as > bb->loop_father is correct (to be verified by a patch for the loop > verification code).
loop_father is easier to keep up-to-date at least, and possibly should just work. A patch removing loop_depth just finished testing and I'll commit it in a sec. Richard. > Ciao! > Steven
