On 10/10/17 01:26, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 21.09.2017 12:55, Timothy Arceri wrote:
The old code assumed that loop terminators will always be at
the start of the loop, resulting in otherwise unrollable
loops not being unrolled at all. For example the current
code would unroll:
int j = 0;
On 21.09.2017 12:55, Timothy Arceri wrote:
The old code assumed that loop terminators will always be at
the start of the loop, resulting in otherwise unrollable
loops not being unrolled at all. For example the current
code would unroll:
int j = 0;
do {
if (j > 5)
break;
On 04/10/17 11:17, Timothy Arceri wrote:
Ping on patches 1 & 3
Ping again on these two.
Nicolai, I believe I've addressed all you feedback besides trying to add
a pass that flips the branches so that the break is always in the then
branch. I'd rather not spend to much more time on this code
Ping on patches 1 & 3
On 21/09/17 20:55, Timothy Arceri wrote:
The old code assumed that loop terminators will always be at
the start of the loop, resulting in otherwise unrollable
loops not being unrolled at all. For example the current
code would unroll:
int j = 0;
do {
if (j >