On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > On 10/24/2016 03:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > >> It's quite ad-hoc :/ The IFN will also be a memory optimization >> barrier unless you add special support >> for it in the alias oracle - so the performance measurement needs to >> be taken with a grain of salt >> (same is true for all atomics of course... - I have some local patches >> to improve things here). > > Good, thus please ping me with the patches you have and I'll integrate it. > >> >> The way you implement process_sm_for_coverage_counter is more like a >> final value replacement. >> You could maybe use create_iv for the loop counter or even wind up >> computing the final value >> (number of iterations) only after the loop, avoiding the IV completely >> (eventually SCEV cprop >> saves you here afterwards). > > Or maybe we can basically assign loop->niter as the argument of > UPDATE_COVERAGE_COUNTER > function?
Yes, that's what I said. Richard. > Martin > >> >> Richard. >
