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: Reorder some tree codes

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
Cc: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:02:58 -0800
Subject: Re: Reorder some tree codes
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <41C6CBA7.7090308@codesourcery.com> <0d8001c4e69b$ce63e8b0$be432597@bagio> <41C6F587.50409@codesourcery.com> <20041220155908.GA15091@nevyn.them.org>

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 07:53:43AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:

I'm sympathetic to the idea that it would be cooler to improve the middle end so that it did this optimization itself, but I don't know how hard that would be. Does anyone have an idea about that? (The documentation issue remains in this case, in that someone might reorder the codes, and then we have a performance degradation, if it's no longer possible to collapse the checks into a range check.)

Are we sure that it doesn't already do this?

I'm not. But, I imagine Nathan can verify that quickly enough.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

References:
- Reorder some tree codes
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: Reorder some tree codes
  - From: Giovanni Bajo
- Re: Reorder some tree codes
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Reorder some tree codes
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

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