This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Cc: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:55:20 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
- References: <3F8D50D5.1020401@coyotegulch.com> <u8r81ezaf6.fsf@gromit.moeb>
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> 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
Testing tree-ssa may seem a bit pre-mature, given that I haven't been able
to compile my projects (which work fine with GCC 2.95-3.4) for many months
now and that Scott uses heavy C++ as well, IIRC.
Though testing and comparing 3.3 versus 3.4 seems an excellent idea;
in fact, Scott, you may consider using 2.95 as a baseline which is
still better than 3.x in many cases wrt. code generation for my stuff,
surprisingly as that may sound.
And if you could also consider compile time with different optimizations,
say -O1, -O3, and some mix of your choice, that definitely would be
interesting.
Gerald
--
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/