On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Abe <abe_skol...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Well. We don't generally introduce regressions with changes. > > > Understood. Regressions are bad, of course. TTBOMK the > regressions in question are temporary. Once they are gone, > I think we can then look at whether or not we still > need to keep the old if converter in trunk. Ideally, > it eventually becomes redundant and unneeded. > > >> (well, the patch still needs review - > >> I hope to get to that this week). > > After I`ve done the SPEC-based analysis, my next planned steps > on this work are to disable the code that [in my WIP] currently > causes conversion to be enabled by default when autovectorization > is enabled, then to re-integrate the old converter and implement > the switches that will give GCC users access to the modes I described > in a recent email from me. You might prefer to delay your code review > until I have that all done and a new version of the patch submitted.
I'm not sure we want two if-converters. What we do want is avoid using a scratch-pad if it is safe to do (for loads and stores) and if the user tells us he is fine with store data races (for stores). Does the "new" if-converter get rid of the analysis code that determined "safe"? If so you should re-instantiate that. Richard. > Regards, > > Abe
