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: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
To: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:36:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
References: <3F8D50D5.1020401@coyotegulch.com> <u8r81ezaf6.fsf@gromit.moeb><Pine.BSF.4.58.0310161551260.21651@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><3F8EA81C.6070400@coyotegulch.com>

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> I'll build and install 2.95.3, and add it to the test suite. I assume
> there's no real reason to look at 3.0.x, 3.1.x, or 3.2.x?

According to my tests 3.0-3.0.2 were extremely bad in terms of compile-
time performance for C++, 3.0.3->3.2.3 went relatively monotonic though
code quality improved slightly.

I think the selection you're currently using makes most sense, and I'm
definitely looking forward to your paper!

Gerald

References:
- Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
  - From: Andreas Jaeger
- Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer
- 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]