This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

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

From: Matt Fago <fago at caltech dot edu>
To: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:53:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0310170947190.20025@clyde> <3F908E77.5000005@coyotegulch.com>

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:

The -O1, -O2, and -O3 options are general-purpose choices for producing good code in general circumstances.

Are they? How is this determined?

I think Acovea might allow the flags implied by these options to be chosen in a more quantitative way. Obviously Acovia should give better results when used with a specific code of interest.

Good luck this weekend. I look forward to trying Acovia on my thesis research code (and will happily cite your paper).

- Matt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd

References:
- Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
  - From: Matthew Fago
- Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]