From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1553 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2011 02:54:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 1544 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2011 02:54:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 02:54:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA52s4UU024562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:54:04 -0400 Received: from pebble.twiddle.home (vpn-224-198.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.224.198]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA52s4qJ015375; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:54:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB4A54B.1010701@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:23:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110928 Fedora/3.1.15-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: Aldy Hernandez , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [patch] 19/n: trans-mem: compiler tree/gimple stuff References: <4EB2EACC.8050307@redhat.com> <4EB4A11B.4020702@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EB4A11B.4020702@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00691.txt.bz2 On 11/04/2011 07:36 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 11/04/2011 03:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> + case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION: >>>> + return (weights->tm_cost >>>> + + estimate_num_insns_seq (gimple_transaction_body (stmt), >>>> + weights)); >>>> + >> Huh, so we now have non-lowered gimple sub-sequence throughout all >> optimizations (inlining especially)? :( > > No. I'm not sure why we're still looking at gimple_transaction_body > here -- that should be NULL after lowering. ... of course, I'm not sure why we're looking at all those other nested statements there inside the inliner either. At least we're doing the same thing as everyone else here. r~