This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: RFC -- update_equiv_regs and friends



  In message <200102281309.f1SD9kI16446@phal.cambridge.redhat.com>you write:
  > > My time is very limited, so I can't take on any large scale development
  > > work to solve this problem.  Thus, I'm thinking seriously about A, C, D,
  > > E & f.
  > 
  > I vote for G: prune the equivalences while they are made in a
  > machine-dependent manner.  That can then also takew care of situations
  > where a constant is more expensive to rematerialize on a particular target
  > than it is in general.
  > 
  > Something like:
I really dislike that approach.  It's leaving too much for the backends to
do.  We really should be able to generically prune bogus equivalences
instead of forcing the backend to do so.

jeff


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