[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] New SRA and early interprocedural SRA

Subject: Re: [RFC] New SRA and early interprocedural SRA
From: Richard Guenther
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:38:32 +0100
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Martin Jambor <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 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:
>> Hi,
>> 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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>