On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
>> stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
>> an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result
>> is: for w/ and w/o builti
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
>>> stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
>>> an extra relation expr which has
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
>> stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
>> an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result
>> is: for w/ and w/o built
> Hi,
>
> builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
> stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
> an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result
> is: for w/ and w/o builtin_expect, we have different size/time estimation
> for ear