Hi Peter,
> On 27 Nov 2015, at 08:36, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Just a note on the test logic...
>
> 71 boolean finalized = false;
> 72 for (int c = 0; c < MAIN_ITERS; c++) {
> 73 finalized |= nonFenced(LOOP_ITERS);
> 74 }
>
> ...no need to loop to the end (MAIN_ITERS) after the outcome is already
> settled:
>
> boolean finalized = false;
> for (int c = 0; !finalized && c < MAIN_ITERS; c++) {
> finalized = nonFenced(LOOP_ITERS);
> }
>
> (Likewise with the fenced loop).
>
Done.
> It's also strange that LOOP_ITERS is passed to nonFenced/fenced via
> parameter, but WARMUP_LOOP_ITERS, derived from it, is accessed as a constant
> directly. Perhaps it would be nicer to just ditch the 'iters' parameter.
>
Ditched, and changed long values to int values.
Webrev updated in place.
Thanks,
Paul.
