On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 10:52 -0500, William J. Schmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 17:26 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
-- snip -- > > > > The position of the pass is odd - why did you place it there? I would > > have placed it alongside pass_cse_sincos and pass_optimize_bswap. > > That was where I wanted it initially also, but this seems necessary for > the pass to run unconditionally. If I recall correctly, > gate_all_optimizations() was kicking in at -O0, so I had to move it > earlier. As an alternative, I could reinstate the "expand" transformations to kick in when the lower_pow pass is disabled. I can then move the lower_pow pass to the neighborhood of pass_cse_sincos and pass_optimize_bswap, and limit it to -O1 and above. Optionally, I could gate it on flag_expensive_optimizations as Nathan suggested, though that is perhaps not appropriate for a simple linear scan. I did a quick regtest of this and it held up without regressions. Let me know if you'd prefer me to implement it that way. I'd probably vote for it myself, as I wasn't happy with extra compile time at -O0 either. Just a matter of whether we want to tolerate duplicated logic to avoid that.
