On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 08:24 -0500, William J. Schmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 11:01 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, William J. Schmidt wrote: > > > > > > > >> I overlooked adding a pass-control flag for strength reduction, added > > > >> here. I named it -ftree-slsr for consistency with other -ftree- flags, > > > >> but could change it to -fgimple-slsr if you prefer that for a pass > > > >> named > > > >> gimple-ssa-... > > > >> > > > >> Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu with no new > > > >> regressions. Ok for trunk? > > > > > > > > The switch needs documentation in doc/invoke.texi. Other than that > > > > it's fine to stick with -ftree-..., even that exposes details to our > > > > users that are not necessary (RTL passes didn't have -frtl-... either). > > > > So in the end, why not re-use -fstrength-reduce that is already > > > > available > > > > (but stubbed out)? > > > > > > In the past, -fstrength-reduce applied to loop strength reduction in > > > loop.c. I don't think it should be re-used for a completely different > > > code transformation. > > > > Ok. I suppose -ftree-slsr is ok then. > > It turns out I was looking at a very old copy of the manual, and the > -ftree... stuff is not as prevalent now as it once was. I'll just go > with -fslsr to be consistent with -fgcse, -fipa-sra, etc.
Well, posted too fast. Paging down I see that isn't true, sorry. I'll use the tree- for consistency even though it is useless information. Thanks, Bill > > Thanks for the pointer to doc/invoke.texi -- it appears I also failed to > document -fhoist-adjacent-loads, so I will go ahead and do that as well. > > Thanks! > Bill > > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > >
