On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote: > > I have added a person from AMD to comment on the decision. > > Otherwise, the patch looks OK, but please wait a couple of days for > > possible comments. > > Thank you Uros! > I am checking the changes with few tests and benchmarking them. > Please wait for a couple of days.
Note that before the fixes for PR64909 the epilogue/prologue loops had very large costs associated due to a bug in the cost model implementation. After the fix their cost is reasonable but the cost of the extra jumps is way under-accounted for due to the numbers for cond_taken_branch_cost and cond_not_taken_branch_cost. The proposes match mitigates that somewhat. How did you arrive at the original cost model? Thanks, Richard. -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
