On 10/24/2016 03:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > It's quite ad-hoc :/ The IFN will also be a memory optimization > barrier unless you add special support > for it in the alias oracle - so the performance measurement needs to > be taken with a grain of salt > (same is true for all atomics of course... - I have some local patches > to improve things here).
Good, thus please ping me with the patches you have and I'll integrate it. > > The way you implement process_sm_for_coverage_counter is more like a > final value replacement. > You could maybe use create_iv for the loop counter or even wind up > computing the final value > (number of iterations) only after the loop, avoiding the IV completely > (eventually SCEV cprop > saves you here afterwards). Or maybe we can basically assign loop->niter as the argument of UPDATE_COVERAGE_COUNTER function? Martin > > Richard.
