Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> writes:

> A couple months ago, I gave a preliminary report on my project to
> analyze the effectiveness of gcc optimizations via an evolutionary
> algorithm. At that time, the responses I received lead me to spend
> time reworking my research code into soemthing a bit more formal and
> modular.
>
> Where the original framework was gcc and Intel specific, the current
> program is both compiler and platform independent.
>
> Now that I'm ready to publish Acovea (Analysis of Compiler Options Via
> Evolutionary Algorithm), I'm wondering which version of gcc I should
> analyze.
>
> 3.3.x is the current release; analyzing it would provide a baseline,
> but any discoveries are unlikely to have much impact on 3.3's
> development at this point.
>
> 3.4 is in active development, and is the subject of my current
> tests. I've discovered a number of anomalies and an ICE; I'll report
> the results here as soon the the entire test set is complete.

3.4 is soon in feature freeze, so it's too late for major changes.

> Should I also analyze tree-ssa, aka 3.5? Is there value in comparing
> results from 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5?

Yes since I see:
- 3.3 as baseline and as platform that is stable
- 3.4 to test what progress has been made already and
- 3.5 as the tree that will hopefully ;-) have fixed everything

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature