This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: register allocation vs. scheduling and other stuff
- From: tm_gccmail at mail dot kloo dot net
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Cc: dberlin at dberlin dot org, tm at mail dot kloo dot net, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:25:39 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: register allocation vs. scheduling and other stuff
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > They also aren't necessarily doing better than a good scheduler and
> > good allocator, in terms of runtime performance or compile time
> > performance.
>
> I disagree for architectures like the ia64. Have a look at some of the
> recent literature in this area.
Do you mean ia64, or do you mean Merced?
Merced doesn't seem to be a very good implementation of the ia64
architecture. McKinley seems to incorporate more opportunities for
out-of-order execution and is therefore far less sensitive to scheduling
issues.
I would guess you actually mean "Merced" in this context.
If you do mean Merced, there are fewer than 5,000 Merced processors
actually in use in the world, and those have been obsoleted anyway by
McKinley. So I'm not sure it makes much sense to optimize well for Merced.
Can you cite a specific reference for "recent literature" ?
Toshi