On 3/03/2012, at 1:55 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> On 30/09/2011, at 1:11 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> ...
>>
>> The following patch rewrites essentially all the cond_exec support in
>> ifcvt; reviewing is probably easier if it's thought of as new code.
>
> Kudos for improving if-conversion!
>
> I
On 30/09/2011, at 1:11 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
...
>
> The following patch rewrites essentially all the cond_exec support in
> ifcvt; reviewing is probably easier if it's thought of as new code.
Kudos for improving if-conversion!
I reviewed this patch to the extent I know ifcvt.c, which is belo
Ping^3. Better support for nested if-then-else structures:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01935.html
Bernd
Ping^2. Better support for nested if-then-else structures:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01935.html
>
>
> Bernd
>
Ping. Better support for nested if-then-else structures:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01935.html
Bernd
Hi Nick,
>> Experiments show that the
>> existing multi-if-block support isn't terribly effective on FRV;
>> before-after comparisons show that by turning it off, there are three
>> spots in gcc that are meaningfully changed, and below 20 in the C
>> benchmarks of SPEC2k.
>>
>> FRV also doesn't bu
Hi Bernd,
Experiments show that the
existing multi-if-block support isn't terribly effective on FRV;
before-after comparisons show that by turning it off, there are three
spots in gcc that are meaningfully changed, and below 20 in the C
benchmarks of SPEC2k.
FRV also doesn't build in mainline,
