On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 09:57:41AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Looks good to me. Please leave others 24h to comment on the
> special zero value (no idea if we have precedent for it, but it sounds
> ok to me).
I think the special zero value is just fine, at least much nicer than the
http://gc
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:31:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Michael Meissner
>> wrote:
>> > On the powerpc, switch statements can be expensive, and we would like to be
>> > able to tune the thres
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:31:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > On the powerpc, switch statements can be expensive, and we would like to be
> > able to tune the threshold of when the compiler generates if statements
> > vs. using
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On the powerpc, switch statements can be expensive, and we would like to be
> able to tune the threshold of when the compiler generates if statements
> vs. using a table jump operation (and different processors within the powerpc
> have d
On the powerpc, switch statements can be expensive, and we would like to be
able to tune the threshold of when the compiler generates if statements
vs. using a table jump operation (and different processors within the powerpc
have different limits). This patch adds a powerpc tuning option to contr
