This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:13:20 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- References: <20031110190205.GA8754@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200311101909.hAAJ9236019314@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
Hello,
> In message <20031110190205.GA8754@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak writ
> es:
> >Concerning compile time -- there is nothing much to worry about, since
> >no transformation done by remove_useless_stmts_and_vars does anything
> >important with it.
> My timings showed quite the opposite.
Huh??? Timings of what?
> >And finally, I already have it done -- see
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-11/msg00388.html.
> And have you compared the timings before and after with your patch?
>
> Have you verified that it covers all the cases that we were previously
> handling (by looking at the dumps before/after)
I have just copied everything that currently indeed does anything to the
function, so it should.
> Have you verifed that it does the right thing when the CFG isn't available
> since this code is called before we build the CFG?
No it won't -- I plan to leave the remove_useless_stmts_and_vars call
before cfg creation as it is (trusting you that it is useful in some
way), and just replace the call to it done at the end of tree-ssa
optimizations.
Zdenek