From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26160 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2016 16:34:45 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26148 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jul 2016 16:34:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:859 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:34:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3765B711EC; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-70.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.70]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u6LGYfQq015063; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:34:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH, vec-tails 07/10] Support loop epilogue combining To: Ilya Enkovich References: <20160519194450.GH40563@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <18ccae1a-30c3-c23c-e28f-287f9d41eaa0@redhat.com> <20160628122439.GB4143@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20160720143705.GA2605@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> Cc: gcc-patches From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:34:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-07/txt/msg01398.txt.bz2 On 07/21/2016 03:15 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > In my list I see #1, #4, and #5 are not approved. So I think Richi wanted to see param control for the new options; Joseph wanted the new options properly documented in invoke.texi; I had a few higher level questions which you answered. Your updated patch #1 added param control and invoke.texi documentation. So IMHO, #1 is approved. #4 had some whitespace nits and needed some light doc improvements which you've done. I think the only real implementation issue was computing costs in a single scan vs restarting the scan. I was OK with the single scan approach you took -- not sure how strongly Richi feels about restarting the scan. Seems like Richi needs to chime in on that topic. I'm hoping to finish reviewing the update to #5 today. jeff