From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4333 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2002 21:19:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4295 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2002 21:19:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (12.150.115.133) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Oct 2002 21:19:06 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9PLI1P06194; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:18:01 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9PLJ5l12633; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:19:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9PLJ4D26375; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:19:04 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9PLJ4P07834; Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:19:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:19:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Jan Hubicka Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: ifcvt pass ordering Message-ID: <20021025211904.GE7572@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Jan Hubicka , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <20021016182414.GH668@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20021025205702.GB7572@redhat.com> <20021025210723.GF28282@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20021025211025.GD7572@redhat.com> <20021025211243.GG28282@kam.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021025211243.GG28282@kam.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01556.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:12:43PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > So what does this accomplish that the call during cse2 does not? > > The ifcvt pass even without liveness does quite a lot, but once tracing > is done it does almost nothing. So by reordering ifcvt before cse2 and > tracer results in quite a bit better code (that can be futher improved > if liveness were available before first ifcvt pass) This doesn't answer my question. The tracer runs after cse2, correct? The current non-life ifcvt pass runs after cse2 and before the tracer, correct? r~