Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/07/2007 18:05:53: > 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).
OK. And what's your opinion WRT conditional loads/stores? Since you've sent your conditional store transformation patch, I guess the meaning could be rewriting it on the top of tree-if-conv. Tehila. > > > Ciao, > Michael.
