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: What to do with new-ra for GCC 4.0

From: Jan Vroonhof <jvlists at ntlworld dot com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Björn Haase <Bjoern dot M dot Haase at web dot de>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:54:32 +0000
Subject: Re: What to do with new-ra for GCC 4.0
References: <1238991885@web.de> <200501021628.00741.paul@codesourcery.com><Pine.LNX.4.60.0501021135040.8214@dberlin.org>

>> I don't think anyone is disagreeing that gcc needs a new register allocator
>> The suggestion is that the "new-ra" on mainline is sufficiently broken that
>> it's better to rip it out and either start again or fix it on a branch than
>> leave it to bitrot and get in the way on mainline.
>
> Bingo.
> Heck, i helped write it and i agree.
> new-ra has failed, long live a new new-ra

Is there a discussion somewhere of what went wrong so any "new new-ra"
can learn form them? IIRC "new-ra" uses/used all the sexy modern ra
algorithms and even had the AFAIK unprecedented waiver of relevant patents ...

Jan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: What to do with new-ra for GCC 4.0
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- What to do with new-ra for GCC 4.0
  - From: Bj=F6rn=20Haase
- Re: What to do with new-ra for GCC 4.0
  - From: Paul Brook
- Re: What to do with new-ra for GCC 4.0
  - From: Daniel Berlin

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