On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Interesting. >> My measurements showed much smaller differences (around 1-2% >> and smaller than the stdev). But I also saw that this difference >> was significantly bigger on older/less performant machines >> (which is not very surprising). > > I guess my laptop can qualify as older/less performance machines :-) Hehe, maybe :) > A wild guess is that the modern CPU are better doing caching and > branch predictions etcs. Indeed. > BTW, I am writing some code to construct the dominator tree for > basic blocks. I think it will be useful to avoid repeat finding dominator. > It will also help you finding the dominator frontier for the phi locations. I don't need it but it's indeed something that is generally needed. > Another possible use is that, we can do incremental remove of dead > blocks without visiting all the blocks. You can't do that once cycles are involved. You need something like the marking algorithm used by kill_unreachable_bbs() for that. And it was such a cycle that created the problem with the false "crazy programmer" warning. -- Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
