On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 08:04:51PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > I don't think this is doing what you think it's doing. This code is
> > for calculating the *cost* of spills, so a higher cost means a lower
> > priority for choosing the regist
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> I don't think this is doing what you think it's doing. This code is
> for calculating the *cost* of spills, so a higher cost means a lower
> priority for choosing the register. We increase the cost for things
> inside loops because we don't w
I'm not seeing where it does anything other than what I say. Beforehand the cost
is increased (*=) from DO->WHILE. Now it should be decreased (/= 10) from
IF->ENDIF. The factor of 10 probably needs to be modified since I suspect
Can you help me see what I'm not seeing?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 06:
I don't think this is doing what you think it's doing. This code is
for calculating the *cost* of spills, so a higher cost means a lower
priority for choosing the register. We increase the cost for things
inside loops because we don't want to spill inside loops, and by doing
the same thing for if's
If we have a register that needs spilling in an if/else block, there is a chance
that we may not need to spill if we do[n't] take the branch.
The downside of this patch is the case where the register being spilled ends up
in both if/else blocks. For that case, preferring this path will increase co
