On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 05:38:12PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
>> > wrote:
>> > Given the special value to note t
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 05:38:12PM +0100, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
> > wrote:
> > Given the special value to note the default for the new --params is
> > zero a user cannot disabl
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
> Given the special value to note the default for the new --params is
> zero a user cannot disable scalarization that way.
>
> I still somehow dislike that you need a targe
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> After hookizing MOVE_BY_PIECES_P and migrating tree-inline.c, we are
> left with only one user of MOVE_RATIO - deciding the maximum size of
> aggregate for SRA.
>
> Past discussions have made it clear [1] that keeping this use of
Hi,
After hookizing MOVE_BY_PIECES_P and migrating tree-inline.c, we are
left with only one user of MOVE_RATIO - deciding the maximum size of
aggregate for SRA.
Past discussions have made it clear [1] that keeping this use of
MOVE_RATIO is undesirable. Clearly it is now also misnamed.
The previ
