On 05/19/2016 01:24 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>> On 05/16/2016 03:55 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 05/16/2016 12:13 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>> Could you please rebase this patch and the profiling one against
>>>> latest trunk?  The third patch was applied before these two now.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> bin
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Sending the rebased version of the patch.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> As I've dramatically changed the 2/3 PATCH, a class encapsulation is not needed any longer.
>> Thus, I've reduced this patch just to usage of member function/operators that are useful
>> in my eyes. It's up the Bin whether to merge the patch?
> Yes, I think we want c++-ify such structures.
> 
>> +comp_cost
>> +operator- (comp_cost cost1, comp_cost cost2)
>> +{
>> +  if (cost1.infinite_cost_p () || cost2.infinite_cost_p ())
>> +    return comp_cost::get_infinite ();
>> +
>> +  cost1.cost -= cost2.cost;
>> +  cost1.complexity -= cost2.complexity;
>> +
>> +  return cost1;
>> +}
> For subtraction, should we expect the second operand as infinite?
> Maybe add an assertion for it in case anything goes wrong here.

Hi.

Done.

> 
>> +comp_cost
>> +comp_cost::get_infinite ()
>> +{
>> +  return comp_cost (INFTY, INFTY);
>> +}
>> +
>> +comp_cost
>> +comp_cost::get_no_cost ()
>> +{
>> +  return comp_cost ();
>> +}
> I think we may keep the original global variables for
> no_cost&infinite_cost, and save these two methods.

Likewise.

>>
>> @@ -5982,11 +6083,11 @@ iv_ca_recount_cost (struct ivopts_data *data, struct iv_ca *ivs)
>>  {
>>    comp_cost cost = ivs->cand_use_cost;
>>
>> -  cost.cost += ivs->cand_cost;
>> +  cost+= ivs->cand_cost;
> Space.

Likewise.

> 
> This is pure refactoring, could you please make sure there is no falls
> out by simply comparing SPEC code generation/disassembly?  I am asking
> since cost computation is sensitive, last time we didn't catch a "*"
> character typo in dump info improvement patch.

I've just verified that code generation for SPECv6 is unchanged and I'm going
to install the patch.

Thanks,
Martin


> 
> Okay with above changes, unless somebody else has comment on the C++
> part (which I know very little about).
> 
> Thanks,
> bin
>>
>> Martin