attached the new patch. OK for check in? On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call >> > stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce >> > an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result >> > is: for w/ and w/o builtin_expect, we have different size/time estimation >> > for inlining. >> > >> > This patch fixes this problem. >> > >> > An earlier discussion of this patch is >> > https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?pli=1#label/gcc-paches/1415c590ad8c5315 >> > >> > This new patch address Honza's comments. >> > It passes the bootstrap and regression. >> > >> > Richard: I looked at your tree-ssa.c:walk_use_def_chains() code. I think >> > that's an overkill for this simple problem. Your code is mostly dealing >> > with the recursively walk the PHI node to find the real def stmts. >> > Here the traversal is within one BB and I may need to continue on multiple >> > real assignment. Calling walk_use_def_chains probably only uses >> > the SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT() part of the code. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -Rong > > This patch is OK. Add white space after > + bool match = false; > + bool done = false; > > and fix > + if (match && single_imm_use (var, &use_p, &use_stmt) && > + (gimple_code (use_stmt) == GIMPLE_COND)) > > && should be at beggining of new line.. > > Thanks, > Honza
p1_patch_v2
Description: Binary data
