https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #1 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Jason McG from comment #0)
I got my static bp summaries wrong, corrected:
> void foo(int i) {
> switch(i) {
> case 1:
bar1(); // gcc: less likely (same as default) | icc: most likely
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #4 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> What would you like us to document exactly? How are we supposed to track
...
Perhaps I was unclear. I am asking that you point out to me in the gcc
documentation wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Jason McG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
If someone cares so much about the static branch predictor, they would be a
compiler developer. This is the first time I have seen a non-compiler developer
care about documenting gcc heuristics. Note there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #7 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> If someone cares so much about the static branch predictor, they would be a
...
I am not a compiler developer and I do care about this in the code I work upon.
I oc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
--- Comment #8 from Jason McG ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
...
> compiler developer. This is the first time I have seen a non-compiler
> developer care about documenting gcc heuristics. Note there is no one paper.
...
See comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66584
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
