On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Shouldn't this be again solved instead by bumping minimum for the param to 1
> from 0? Because, the smaller the param is, the bigger freq_threshold is,
> so if for the smallest param we suddenly set freq_threshold to 0, it isn't
> consistent.
Yeah, I'm all for it. I think it's so obvious that I'll just commit it
tomorrow to trunk/4.8.
2013-04-10 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/48184
* params.def (PARAM_ALIGN_THRESHOLD): Increase the minimum
value to 1.
--- gcc/params.def.mp 2013-04-10 18:35:24.983126017 +0200
+++ gcc/params.def 2013-04-10 18:35:36.619165432 +0200
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ DEFPARAM(HOT_BB_FREQUENCY_FRACTION,
DEFPARAM (PARAM_ALIGN_THRESHOLD,
"align-threshold",
"Select fraction of the maximal frequency of executions of basic
block in function given basic block get alignment",
- 100, 0, 0)
+ 100, 1, 0)
DEFPARAM (PARAM_ALIGN_LOOP_ITERATIONS,
"align-loop-iterations",
Marek
