From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Nigel Stephens <nigel@mips.com>, Guy Morrogh <guym@mips.com>,
David Ung <davidu@mips.com>, Thiemo Seufer <ths@mips.com>,
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
richard@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: fine-tuning for can_store_by_pieces
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:54:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46CAEBCE.3050807@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ps1h5mda.fsf@firetop.home>
Richard Sandiford wrote:
> What did you think about the other suggestion: moving the magic
> "1 instruction" bound for optimize_size from builtins.c to SET_RATIO?
Perhaps other maintainers can jump in and say something here, but my gut feeling
is that it doesn't make sense to remove that. Doing a one-byte store inline
always has to be cheaper than a function call, and doing the optimization early
makes more sense than relying on a target-specific expansion, because it might
allow recognition of other optimization patterns along the way. I found during
my earlier testing that setting MOVE_RATIO too low to catch that case had the
side-effect of causing one of the profile-guided optimization test cases to
fail, for instance.
-Sandra
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-21 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-15 17:15 Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-15 17:22 ` Andrew Pinski
2007-08-15 18:32 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-15 19:53 ` Nigel Stephens
2007-08-15 19:58 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-17 4:50 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-08-17 13:24 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-17 18:55 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-08-16 8:34 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-16 19:41 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-19 0:03 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-20 8:22 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-20 23:38 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-21 8:21 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-21 10:34 ` Nigel Stephens
2007-08-21 11:53 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-21 12:14 ` Nigel Stephens
2007-08-21 12:35 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-21 13:54 ` Sandra Loosemore [this message]
2007-08-21 14:22 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-21 20:39 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-21 20:56 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-23 14:35 ` Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-23 14:44 ` Richard Sandiford
2007-08-25 5:35 ` [committed] " Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-25 9:18 ` Jakub Jelinek
2007-08-25 9:58 ` Jakub Jelinek
2007-08-25 14:30 ` gcc.c-torture/execute/20030221-1.c regressed with "fine-tuning for can_store_by_pieces" Hans-Peter Nilsson
2007-08-25 14:40 ` [committed] Re: PATCH: fine-tuning for can_store_by_pieces Sandra Loosemore
2007-08-24 22:06 ` Mark Mitchell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46CAEBCE.3050807@codesourcery.com \
--to=sandra@codesourcery.com \
--cc=davidu@mips.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=guym@mips.com \
--cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=nigel@mips.com \
--cc=richard@codesourcery.com \
--cc=ths@mips.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).