On 09/06/11 12:37, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Maybe here:
[...]
> it would be better to use:
>
> this_info = (struct bb_rename_info *) bb1->aux;
>
> if (this_info == NULL)
> continue;
>
> so that we don't care which order the rename_info array is. You could
> then keep the original f
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> On 09/01/11 16:16, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Bernd Schmidt writes:
>>> On 08/26/11 14:57, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Wouldn't a reverse post-order (inverted_post_order_compute) allow even
more pre-opening (as well as being less code)?
>>>
>>> I can't really tell
On 09/01/11 16:16, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Bernd Schmidt writes:
>> On 08/26/11 14:57, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Wouldn't a reverse post-order (inverted_post_order_compute) allow even
>>> more pre-opening (as well as being less code)?
>>
>> I can't really tell from the comments what that fun
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> On 08/26/11 14:57, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> + /* There must be some kind of conflict. Set the unusable for all
>>> + overlapping registers. */
>>> + min_reg = chain->regno;
>>> + if (incoming_nregs < 0)
>>> +min_reg += incoming_nregs;
>>> + max_reg = chain
On 08/26/11 14:57, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> + /* There must be some kind of conflict. Set the unusable for all
>> + overlapping registers. */
>> + min_reg = chain->regno;
>> + if (incoming_nregs < 0)
>> +min_reg += incoming_nregs;
>> + max_reg = chain->regno + chain->nregs;
>> + f
Rather than using global variables and then copying them into a bb
structure, would it be possible to write directly into the bb structure?
The answer's probably "no", just asking. :-)
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> * regrename.c (struct du_head): Make nregs signed.
> (scan_rtx_reg, scan_rtx
On 08/24/11 13:12, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Sorry, I'm find this a bit tough to review. Could you provide some
> overview comments somewhere to say what the new algorithm is?
> The comment at the head of regrename.c still describes the current
> bb-local algorithm.
New patch below, with extra c
On 08/24/11 13:12, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Sorry, I'm find this a bit tough to review. Could you provide some
> overview comments somewhere to say what the new algorithm is?
Will resubmit. To make the patch smaller next time, I've committed the
following as obvious (BSRT i686-linux).
Bernd
I
Sorry, I'm find this a bit tough to review. Could you provide some
overview comments somewhere to say what the new algorithm is?
The comment at the head of regrename.c still describes the current
bb-local algorithm.
One thing though:
Bernd Schmidt writes:
> @@ -215,8 +306,9 @@ merge_overlapping
