On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi,
builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result
is: for w/ and w/o
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi,
builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
an
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
Hi,
builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result
is: for w/ and w/o
Hi,
builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result
is: for w/ and w/o builtin_expect, we have different size/time estimation
for early inlining.
Hi,
builtin_expect should be a NOP in size_estimation. Indeed, the call
stmt itself is 0 weight in size and time. But it may introduce
an extra relation expr which has non-zero size/time. The end result
is: for w/ and w/o builtin_expect, we have different size/time estimation
for early