This is the mail archive of the 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: GCSE store motion

In message <>, Daniel Berlin writes:
 > I "claimed" it wasn't doing anything because SPEC95/2000 runs show it 
 > making no improvement whatsoever.
 > In addition, never, in any RTL dumps of any code, ever, have I seen it 
 > remove a single store. 
 > Nobody has claimed that it is generally useful in it's current state. In 
 > fact, the person who submitted it has claimed otherwise.
 > It was written to address a specific case, which i've no doubt it does.
 > This case rarely, if ever, occurs.
 > If you want to claim it is a functional optimization that has useful 
 > application, please provide benchmarks that show store motion making any
 > difference.
If I legally could give you the code to prove this stuff was useful to
the customer paying for it, then I would.  Unfortunately that code is
highly proprietary.

You might consider looking at EEMBC which has certain gross similarities
to the code from our customer.  THough I haven't looked closely enough
at EEMBC to determine if the similarities are enough to trigger the


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