Ping.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Easwaran Raman <era...@google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Easwaran Raman <era...@google.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >>>> This patch propagates execution count of thee case labels of a >>>> switch-case statement after its expansion. Bootstraps and all >>>> tests pass. OK for trunk? >>> >>> Hi, >>> while this is resonable thing to do, I belive it would make most sense >>> to make switch lowering at gimple level: i.e. reorganize the existing >>> code to produce gimple statement and change expansion code to produce >>> tablejump from every gimple switch statement that was left in the >>> code. >>> >>> This would be both cleaner and would allow gimple optimizers to improve the >>> generated code. Incrementally it would also allow us to improve switch >>> exansion >>> that is quite baroque and not realy producing very good code in some common >>> cases. >>> >>> If you would be interested working on this (i.e. reorganizing the expansion >>> code to produce gimple), I would be very happy. If not, I can review the >>> profile updating part for mainline, since in any case this is desriable >>> thing >>> to do. >> >> I am planning to explore improvements to switch expansion (peeling >> some cases and using jump tables for the rest, for example) and I >> think the reorganization you suggest is the right way to do such >> improvements. But until I can spend time on it and get it done, I >> would like this patch to get reviewed and checked in. >> >> Thanks, >> Easwaran > > Ping.
