On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:07:15AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Nathan Froyd
>> wrote:
>> > Granted, but that fact should still be recorded. The situation we have
>> > today, for something like:
>> >
>>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:07:15AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Nathan Froyd
> wrote:
> > Granted, but that fact should still be recorded. The situation we have
> > today, for something like:
> >
> > func1: statistic for "statx" was 0
> > - nothing is record
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:54:43PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Nathan Froyd
>> wrote:
>> > True, but maybe those testcases should be adjusted--per-pass flags,
>> > rather than blindly assuming -O2 inclu
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:54:43PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Nathan Froyd
> wrote:
> > True, but maybe those testcases should be adjusted--per-pass flags,
> > rather than blindly assuming -O2 includes them. And it's not clear to
>
> It's easier to add thi
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Yes, I used it exactly for that. And also to verify that passes don't
> do anything if replicated (well, for those that shouldn't at least).
What about passes that undo the work of previous patches -- and then
followed by a patch that re
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:37:42PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Nathan Froyd
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks. I may go twiddle that patch to do something similar to mine and
>> > submit that. Do you use your pat
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:37:42PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Nathan Froyd
> wrote:
> > Thanks. I may go twiddle that patch to do something similar to mine and
> > submit that. Do you use your patch for checking that the same set of
> > optimizations get p
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:27:01PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Froyd
>> wrote:
>> > It's a shame more passes don't make use of the statistics_*
>> > infrastructure. This patch is a step towards
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:27:01PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Froyd
> wrote:
> > It's a shame more passes don't make use of the statistics_*
> > infrastructure. This patch is a step towards rectifying that and adds
> > statistics_counter_event calls
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> It's a shame more passes don't make use of the statistics_*
> infrastructure. This patch is a step towards rectifying that and adds
> statistics_counter_event calls to passes mentioned in $SUBJECT.
> postreload-gcse already tracked the stats
It's a shame more passes don't make use of the statistics_*
infrastructure. This patch is a step towards rectifying that and adds
statistics_counter_event calls to passes mentioned in $SUBJECT.
postreload-gcse already tracked the stats for the dump file and so only
needs the statistics_counter_eve
11 matches
Mail list logo
