On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:35:46PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/08/2015 06:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >As the PR points out, the "simple" reorder algorithm makes bigger code
> >than the STC algorithm did, for -Os, for x86. I now tested it for many
> >different targets and it turns o
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:29:16AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think the patch makes sense but it also raises a question for me - how
> did we decide what edge gets EDGE_FALLTHRU when going out-of-cfglayout?
Good question. I think it just tries to make "natural" control flow; I'll
investigat
On 10/08/2015 06:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
As the PR points out, the "simple" reorder algorithm makes bigger code
than the STC algorithm did, for -Os, for x86. I now tested it for many
different targets and it turns out to be worse everywhere.
That's somewhat disappointing. Wasn't it su
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> As the PR points out, the "simple" reorder algorithm makes bigger code
> than the STC algorithm did, for -Os, for x86. I now tested it for many
> different targets and it turns out to be worse everywhere.
>
> This simple patch tunes "sim
