On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Martin Jambor <mjambor@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> thanks for your comments, I have addressed some of them, I am not sure
> what do to with another few.
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 12:29:07PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> patch is OK for pretty-IPA with following changes (and changelog :)
> What about the current tree-sra.c and the nastiness of the passes.c
> hunk? Should I replace the previous intrsprocedural SRA outright?
> That would make it difficult for us to assess run time benefits of any
> subsequent patches. Should I keep it as it is? Or do something
> different about it?
I would suggest to benchmark replacing the current tree-sra.c separately
(w/o introducing the IPA pass). If that works out just kill the current