Re: [google gcc-4_8] fix size_estimation for builtin_expect

2013-09-27 Thread Richard Biener
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

Re: [google gcc-4_8] fix size_estimation for builtin_expect

2013-09-27 Thread Rong Xu
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

Re: [google gcc-4_8] fix size_estimation for builtin_expect

2013-09-27 Thread Rong Xu
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

[google gcc-4_8] fix size_estimation for builtin_expect

2013-09-26 Thread Rong Xu
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.

Re: [google gcc-4_8] fix size_estimation for builtin_expect

2013-09-26 Thread Jan Hubicka
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