This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Patch ping ^ 2


Hello,

> > 1) Unless your patch to make voperands represent output dependences again
> >    (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01437.html) gets into
> >    mainline, the rewrite of store motion
> >    (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01120.html) is the best
> >    choice.
> 
> 	Regardless whether Dan's patch gets approved for mainline, the
> original, unmodified patch is taking GCC in the wrong direction and should
> not be accepted.

you cannot be serious.  Unless the msg01437.html patch is accepted, the
rewrite is the only sane possibility how to solve PR 17133 (serious
misscompilations...)

And why do you assume that the direction in that the patch takes it is
wrong?  It is the way at least one other compiler (LLVM) uses.  It is
clean and very easy to understand and extend.  Also once the
msg01437.html is accepted (which it should, at least for 4.1, although I
think it is a bit too intrusive for 4.0), it is trivial to make it take
advantage of SSA form for virtual operands.

Zdenek


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]