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] |
On Jun 2, 2009, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:I think we are simply proposing that when VTA code is added and enabled, the default behaviour is then changed such that we do this coalescing. Until then it stays with the current tradeoffs. no options required...
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 2009, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
Is there a reason we can't leave the current default behaviour the way
it is, and have the VTA code simple enable the "best" choices for it.
We don't want options used to control generation of debug information (say the option that enables or disables VTA) to change the generated code (say enable or disable coalescing), do we? This would be as bad as -g/-g0 generating different code.
Personally, I don't see the point of the options either, but I don't see
Me neither, and I am opposed to adding it.
I'm missing your rationale here as well. It would help if you at least voiced what you suggest we do instead.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |