This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCSE store motion
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 11:39:40 -0600
- Subject: Re: GCSE store motion
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>, Daniel Berlin writes:
> But nobody has any plans to improve it, it's been bitrotting since it was
No. It's more a matter of time.
> When the number of places the optimizations is applicable approaches 0,
> the optimization should be disabled.
If you happen to have a representative sample of all code sets, then yes.
But reality is you don't have that representative sample.
> I've not suggested we *remove* store motion until it is superceded.
> I do think it should be disabled, as it just wastes time.
> Or, as you say, move it to -fexpensive-optimizations.
Moving it to -fexmensive-optimizations or even having the user
explicitly specify that they want those optimizations would be
fine by me.