Re: [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate components

2016-09-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 09/14/2016 07:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:02:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: As a final optimisation, if a block needs a prologue and its immediate dominator has the block as a post-dominator, the dominator gets the prologue as well. So why not just put it in the

Re: [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate components

2016-09-14 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:02:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > >>>As a final optimisation, if a block needs a prologue and its immediate > >>>dominator has the block as a post-dominator, the dominator gets the > >>>prologue as well. > >>So why not just put it in the idom and not in the dominated block

Re: [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate components

2016-09-12 Thread Jeff Law
On 09/09/2016 03:57 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:34:07PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 07/31/2016 07:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Deciding what blocks should run with a certain component active so that the total cost of executing the prologues (and epilogues) is opt

Re: [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate components

2016-09-09 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:34:07PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/31/2016 07:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > >Deciding what blocks should run with a certain component active so that > >the total cost of executing the prologues (and epilogues) is optimal, is > >not a computationally feasible

Re: [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate components

2016-09-08 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/31/2016 07:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: Deciding what blocks should run with a certain component active so that the total cost of executing the prologues (and epilogues) is optimal, is not a computationally feasible problem. Really? It's just a dataflow problem is it not and one that