This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCSE store motion
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "law at redhat dot com" <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 11:50:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCSE store motion
- References: <3557.1021484283@porcupine.cygnus.com>
--On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:38:03 AM -0600 "law@redhat.com"
<law@redhat.com> wrote:
> In message <17950000.1021482109@gandalf.codesourcery.com>, Mark Mitchell
> writes: > Dan's claim seems to be that nobody has a real-world
> application that > shows an improvement with store motion enabled. If
> that's true, we > don't need that optimization enabled. We can keep the
> code, and use > it when it becomes more useful, but there's no reason to
> be running > that pass.
> >
> > If, however, someone has real applications that show measurable
> > improvents -- the Linux kernel would certainly qualify -- then we
> > should rethink the issue.
> Would games on a very popular game console work?
Sure! Do we have any numbers at all? (I know you said it was difficult
to measure...)
I think there are two issues:
1. Correctness.
2. Efficacy.
There seems to be some debate on (1), but assuming that the optimization
is correct, we're down to (2). As long as the optimization doesn't
take unreasonably long to run, and as long as it helps some real programs
without hurting most of them, we should have it.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com