From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-56869-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1587 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2002 16:54:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 1544 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2002 16:54:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO potter.sfbay.redhat.com) (205.180.83.107)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2002 16:54:55 -0000
Received: from dot.sfbay.redhat.com (dot.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.7])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6LGtJQ13994;
	Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:55:19 -0700
Received: (from rth@localhost)
	by dot.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6LGssf22184;
	Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:54:54 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: dot.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:23:00 -0000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Alias analysis - does base_alias_check still work ?
Message-ID: <20020721095454.A22181@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
	Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
References: <3D346B28.47039CD9@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <3D3824DA.B198DC39@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <20020719095446.A15598@redhat.com> <3D38543D.F5D84797@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <3D386E94.E6D03C8B@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <20020719153514.B15706@redhat.com> <20020719170330.A15734@redhat.com> <3D3A7DB0.A134B3A6@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <3D3A7DB0.A134B3A6@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>; from toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl on Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 11:24:00AM +0200
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00958.txt.bz2

On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 11:24:00AM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> I combined your MEM_EXPR patch and patch1, but now I get (-O2
> -funroll-loops -fno-rerun-loop-opt):
[...]
> which is worse than you showed for the MEM_EXPR patch alone
> 32 insns vs 27).

So is the claim that patch1 is dependent on patch2?


r~