On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:42:58PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 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.
Yes, thanks.
> 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",
>
Jakub
