From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8854 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2012 19:46:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 8841 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2012 19:46:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,MAY_BE_FORGED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:46:07 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Su7X4-0001nu-1M for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:46:07 -0400 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:34238) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Su7X3-0001ix-Si for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:46:05 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e3.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:44:50 -0400 Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.224.85) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.103) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:43:56 -0400 Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461056E803C for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q6PJhsdn424396 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:43:54 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q6PJhsnF011755 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:43:54 -0300 Received: from [9.10.86.122] (ibm-tp6f2po0ikq.rchland.ibm.com [9.10.86.122] (may be forged)) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q6PJhrv7011698; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:43:53 -0300 Subject: Re: [PING] Re: [RFC, ivopts] fix bugs in ivopts address cost computation From: "William J. Schmidt" To: Sandra Loosemore Cc: Richard Guenther , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <50104B79.5080707@codesourcery.com> References: <4FCE3512.7070607@codesourcery.com> <4FF470EE.1070105@codesourcery.com> <50104B79.5080707@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1343245432.4638.23.camel@oc2474580526.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12072519-8974-0000-0000-00000B7E27C8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 32.97.182.143 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg01296.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 13:39 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 07/17/2012 05:22 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Sandra Loosemore > > wrote: > >> > >> Ping? Original post with patch is here: > >> > >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00319.html > > > > Can you update the patch and numbers based on what Bill did for > > straight-line strength reduction which re-uses this analysis/caching part? > > I will try to take another look at this once Bill has finished his work > that touches on this; it's been hard for me to track a moving target. I > was wondering if it might be more consistent with Bill's work to defer > some of the address cost computation to new target hooks, after all. > > -Sandra > Hi Sandra, I apologize for the mess. I should be done causing distress to this part of the code as soon as the patch I submitted today is committed. Sorry! Bill