This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop optimizer issues
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 23:16:18 +0200
- Subject: Re: Loop optimizer issues
- References: <20030702210607.GA25332@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200307022112.RAA31274@makai.watson.ibm.com>
Hello,
> >> > just for sure -- nobody will protest if I drop handling of libcalls
> >> > in new loop optimizer? This definitely should not be neccesary to handle
> >> > on rtl level.
> >>
> >> How do you plan to handle ports where multiplication or addition
> >> requires a libcall?
>
> Zdenek> in no special way. The optimizations done on ast level would then have
> Zdenek> higher priority for optimizing them when possible.
>
> Does "new loop optimizer" refer to a revision to the RTL loop
> optimizer or a re-write of the loop optimizer in the Tree-SSA
> infrastructure?
rtl one.
> LIBCALLs should not be present in GIMPLE, should they?
I hope so; this is exactly why I would prefer to handle things there
rather than figting it later in rtl.
Zdenek