Hi, On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > 2. Store-sinking/load hoisting may have an overhead and may degrade > > performance unless the relevant conditional branch gets if-converted. > > I agree with you for conditional stores/loads. > > The unconditional store/load stuff, however, is exactly what > tree-ssa-sink was meant to do, and belongs there (this is #3 above). I'm > certainly going to fight tooth and nail against trying to shoehorn > unconditional store sinking into if-conv. FWIW I also agree that handling unconditional stores/loads does not belong in if-conv (or phi-opt), but in ssa-sink (or some similar transformation which can or can not use value numbers and the like). Ciao, Michael.
