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] Fix constant array ARRAY_REF[constant index] optimization (PR middle-end/28755)

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, richard at codesourcery dot com
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:56:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix constant array ARRAY_REF[constant index] optimization (PR middle-end/28755)
References: <20060817111225.GT32572@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <8764gk9749.fsf@talisman.home> <20060822145148.GC32572@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <87k6507n68.fsf@talisman.home>

Richard Sandiford wrote:

I'm happier with the idea of not using anchors if defer == 1.
It will obviously pessimise some cases that -fsection-anchors
would otherwise handle better, but I think the trade-off is the
right one.  Any pessimisation we get by ignoring the defer parameter
will be a regression from earlier releases; any curtailment of the
-fsection-anchors functionality will not.  Of course, if there are
cases where we can safely use anchors even with defer == 1,
so much the better.

I agree.

Thanks,

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

References:
- [PATCH] Fix constant array ARRAY_REF[constant index] optimization (PR middle-end/28755)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Fix constant array ARRAY_REF[constant index] optimization (PR middle-end/28755)
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: [PATCH] Fix constant array ARRAY_REF[constant index] optimization (PR middle-end/28755)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Fix constant array ARRAY_REF[constant index] optimization (PR middle-end/28755)
  - From: Richard Sandiford

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