On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > ICK ...
> > >
> > > Why not sth as simple as
> > >
> > > return num_ssa_operands (stmt, SSA_OP_USE);
> > >
> > > ? a[1][2] and b[2] really have the same cost, variable length
> > > objects have extra SSA operands in ARRAY_REF/COMPONENT_REF for
> > ICK ...
> >
> > Why not sth as simple as
> >
> > return num_ssa_operands (stmt, SSA_OP_USE);
> >
> > ? a[1][2] and b[2] really have the same cost, variable length
> > objects have extra SSA operands in ARRAY_REF/COMPONENT_REF for
> > the size. Thus, stmt cost somehow should reflect th
> ICK ...
>
> Why not sth as simple as
>
> return num_ssa_operands (stmt, SSA_OP_USE);
>
> ? a[1][2] and b[2] really have the same cost, variable length
> objects have extra SSA operands in ARRAY_REF/COMPONENT_REF for
> the size. Thus, stmt cost somehow should reflect the number
> of depe
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> while looking into cunroll issues I noticed that we miss quite lot of
> important unrolling
> at -O2 for EON because we think it will increase code size. This is because
> we do not
> account the fact that making array index constant is good thing
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Hmm, also in ASM/call/return? It will definitely make quite a fuzz into
> > the cost metric
> > by making a=b+c to have cost of 3 instead of 1 as it have now. I am not
> > 100% sure if
> > a+b should be more expensive than a+1.
> > I can give that a
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > > +/* For operands of load/stores estimate cost of the address computations
> > > + involved. */
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +estimate_operand_cost (tree op)
> > > +{
> > > + int cost = 0;
> > > + while (handled_component_p (op))
> > > +{
>
> Hmm, also in ASM/call/return? It will definitely make quite a fuzz into the
> cost metric
> by making a=b+c to have cost of 3 instead of 1 as it have now. I am not 100%
> sure if
> a+b should be more expensive than a+1.
> I can give that a try and we will see after re-tunning how well it work
> > +/* For operands of load/stores estimate cost of the address computations
> > + involved. */
> > +
> > +static int
> > +estimate_operand_cost (tree op)
> > +{
> > + int cost = 0;
> > + while (handled_component_p (op))
> > +{
> > + cost += estimate_ref_cost (op);
> > + op = TR
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> while looking into cunroll issues I noticed that we miss quite lot of
> important unrolling
> at -O2 for EON because we think it will increase code size. This is because
> we do not
> account the fact that making array index constant is good thing
