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: remove reverse_die_lists

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Geoffrey Keating <gkeating at apple dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:36:12 -0700
Subject: Re: remove reverse_die_lists
References: <84fc9c000604220239h552149ben815ae87fa7982ee@mail.gmail.com> <200604221618.k3MGIl725924@makai.watson.ibm.com>

David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Guenther writes:
> 
>> Are these patches somehow fix bugs or regressions?
> 
> 	GCC has goals for compile time performance, not just performance
> of generated code, specific transformations, and new features.  Overall
> compile time regressions are regressions and any patches to improve that
> area are appreciated.

Certainly, as RM, I am happy to have improvements in compile-time
performance made at this point; I certainly consider our gradual
degredation in compile-time performance over time to be a bug.  On the
other hand, if Geoff's patches causes problems, we'll back them out
rather aggressively, since, as you say, they do not affect the core
correctness of the compiler.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- Re: remove reverse_die_lists
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: remove reverse_die_lists
  - From: David Edelsohn

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