Hi!
Yes, you can just use estimate_num_loop_insns afaics.
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:58:20AM +0800, Jiufu Guo wrote:
>if (unroll_only_small_loops && optimize == 2)
> {
>if (maxiter >= 4
> - && !(TREE_CODE (niter) == INTEGER_CST && single_exit (loop)))
> + && !(TREE_CO
"Kewen.Lin" writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> on 2020/5/20 上午11:58, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch check the size of a loop to be unrolled/peeled completely,
>> and set the limits to a number (24). This prevents large loop from
>> being unrolled, then avoid binary size increasing
Hi Jeff,
on 2020/5/20 上午11:58, Jiufu Guo via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch check the size of a loop to be unrolled/peeled completely,
> and set the limits to a number (24). This prevents large loop from
> being unrolled, then avoid binary size increasing, and this limit keeps
> perform
Jiufu Guo writes:
> Hi,
>
> This patch check the size of a loop to be unrolled/peeled completely,
> and set the limits to a number (24). This prevents large loop from
> being unrolled, then avoid binary size increasing, and this limit keeps
> performance.
>
> Bootstrap®test pass on powerpc64le,
Hi,
This patch check the size of a loop to be unrolled/peeled completely,
and set the limits to a number (24). This prevents large loop from
being unrolled, then avoid binary size increasing, and this limit keeps
performance.
Bootstrap®test pass on powerpc64le, ok for trunk?
Jiufu
---
gcc/con
