From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15079 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2010 09:36:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 14964 invoked by uid 48); 11 Jan 2010 09:35:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100111093551.14963.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/41004] missed merge of basic blocks In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg01210.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-11 09:35 ------- Re. comment #5 -- rth, any suggestions what an algorithm would look like to "minimize the number of branches, or the total size of all of the branch instructions"? And what do you mean with "some clever changes to the shorten_branches code"? Did you mean the calculation of insn sizes, or avoiding padding, or something else completely? Hope you can help a bit... -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41004