This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop optimizer issues
- From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Date: 28 Jul 2003 01:02:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: Loop optimizer issues
- References: <20030530183552.GA27110@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1054585449.9789.146.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <20030727224601.GA5476@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Op ma 28-07-2003, om 00:46 schreef Zdenek Dvorak:
> Hello,
>
> I am basically done with the work on rtl-level optimizer. There are still
Whooo-hoooo! Nice work :-)
Is sibcall now the only pass that trashes the CFG?
> I think it is a good time to merge it into tree-ssa. I have tested it and there
> are no real conflicts, so it should not be problematic.
The problem may not be in conflicts but in QA: How are you going to be
able to assert that tree-ssa and rtlopt are achieving their goals when
other new infrastructure is also being merged?
AFAIK rtlopt is mostly orthogonal to tree-ssa. Tuning, comparing, and
improving the new frameworks with resoect to the existing code should
therefore also be done separately (especially considering the long list
of open issues you mention). You could merge without disabling the old
loop optimizers, but then your reason for merging (better testing
coverage) is probably not going to happen.
So I think it is a bad idea to merge code from one branch into the
other, unless it is also merged into the mainline.
Steven's $0.02