On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > (Maybe I am missing half of the discussion -- sorry if so). > > I think we should have a new iv for just the doloop (which can have the > same starting value and step and type as another iv). > > Has this been considered?
I was also suggesting this (maybe with too many words ;)). If it's a doloop target add such IV (candidate!) which has zero use-cost for the increment and compare but a (target configurable) penalty for other uses. Invasiveness of this approach is probably that you need to distinguish this candidate by making it a new kind (or maybe we can just have a specia candidate number...). Richard.
