On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 05:01:10PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > Yeah, and I'm not suggesting we change the logic there (sorry if the > description was misleading). Instead I'm proposing that we handle more > cases for parallels to not return zero.
Right. My test run is half way through, will have results later -- your change looks good to me, but it is always surprising whether better costs help or not, or even *hurt* good code generation (things are just too tightly tuned to the current behaviour, so some things may need retuning). Segher
