From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15243 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2010 10:28:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 15231 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2010 10:28:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nikam-dmz.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:27:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (occam.ms.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.18.121]) by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848589AC963; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:27:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 29025) id 7F2ED564187; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:27:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 10:28:00 -0000 From: Zdenek Dvorak To: Xinliang David Li Cc: GCC Patches Subject: Re: Fix PR/46200 -- ivopt bug in test condition cost computation Message-ID: <20101103102757.GA12686@kam.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20101030193016.GA20982@kam.mff.cuni.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 Hi, > >> Hi, please review the patch attached. Regression and some performance > >> test is under going. > > > > it would be more consistent to either avoid using aff_combination functions > > in get_computation_cost_at completely, or rewrite it to use aff_combination > > instead of the current difference_cost/... functions (however, the latter > > would probably lead to somewhat slower compilation time).  The patch should > > also include a testcase for the problem. > > I agree -- the code for cost computation should match (or probably > share with) code in the rewrite functions -- however that is a much > larger task than is needed for this PR. > > I added a test case (marked with x86 target as ivopt are very target > sensitive). Regression test and minimal perf testing went ok. OK, Zdenek