On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Nov 25, 2013, at 2:57 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the individual port >>> and front end maintainers can review their parts without have to go through >>> the entire patch. This patch covers the cfg code. >>> >>> Ok? >> >> Hmm, this is an example of a wide_int (a widest_int) being used inside >> a structure with long lifetime. With the patch there are two of those >> per loop plus up to one per statement in a loop body (quadratic in >> the loop depth). > > >> Now, for the number-of-iterations stuff I really would like to keep things >> cheaper in some way or another. Shrinking MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT >> would be the easiest improvement for x86_64. > >> That said, I'd like this to be addressed. > > The port can limit the size like so: > > /* Keep the OI and XI modes from confusing the compiler into thinking > that these modes could actually be used for computation. They are > only holders for vectors during data movement. */ > #define MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT (128) > > and that is now done on x86. > > Ok?
Ok ... but would it be possible to use the wide_int kind with embedded variable-length array here as well (like for range_info?). Thanks, Richard. > A copy of the patch is below (unchanged)... >
