On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 09:57 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> I don't know enough to assess the effect of this but
>>
>> 1) not all archs can do auto-incdec so either the comment is misleading
>> or the test should probably be amended
>> 2)
On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 09:57 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I don't know enough to assess the effect of this but
>
> 1) not all archs can do auto-incdec so either the comment is misleading
> or the test should probably be amended
> 2) I wonder why with the comment ("during the loop") you exclude
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 11:24 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > This second case (without the preference for the original IV)
>> > generates better code on MIPS because the final assembly
>> > has the increment instructions between the loads
On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 11:24 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > This second case (without the preference for the original IV)
> > generates better code on MIPS because the final assembly
> > has the increment instructions between the loads and the tests
> > of the values being loaded and so there is
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I have an ivopts optimization question/proposal. When compiling the
> attached program the ivopts pass prefers the original ivs over new ivs
> and that causes us to generate less efficient code on MIPS. It may
> affect other platforms too.
>
I have an ivopts optimization question/proposal. When compiling the
attached program the ivopts pass prefers the original ivs over new ivs
and that causes us to generate less efficient code on MIPS. It may
affect other platforms too.
The Source code is a C strcmp:
int strcmp (const char *p1, co
