From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4813 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2012 19:39:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 4796 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2012 19:39:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:39:30 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Su7Qe-00046Y-NN from Sandra_Loosemore@mentor.com ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:39:28 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:39:28 -0700 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:39:27 -0700 Message-ID: <50104B79.5080707@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:39:00 -0000 From: Sandra Loosemore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: , "William J. Schmidt" Subject: Re: [PING] Re: [RFC, ivopts] fix bugs in ivopts address cost computation References: <4FCE3512.7070607@codesourcery.com> <4FF470EE.1070105@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg01294.txt.bz2 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