This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture
- From: Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>, aaw at google dot com, kenneth dot hoste at elis dot ugent dot be, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:46:02 +1000
- Subject: Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture
- References: <200704202322.QAA29468@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <462BFE92.2030905@codesourcery.com> <1177322806.14160.12.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <462CCBCB.50805@codesourcery.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0704231304040.13493@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <462CF363.3060802@codesourcery.com> <462CF5BB.1070108@redhat.com>
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:06 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > So, I think there's a middle ground between "exactly the same passes on
> > all targets" and "use Acovea for every CPU to pick what -O2 means".
> > Using Acovea to reveal some of the suprising, but beneficial results,
> > seems like a fine idea, though.
>
> I'm hoping to hear something along those lines at the next GCC Summit. I
> have heard of a bunch of work in academia doing extensive optimization
> space searches looking for combinations of pass sequencing and
> repetition to achieve optimal results.
When I finished my Masters project a couple of years ago, I felt that
iterative compilation was a failing idea. It seems, though, that I
should have considered submitting a GCC Summit paper on my experiences
with GCC. Perhaps next year, if it's still relevant!
Ben
--
Ben Elliston <bje@au.ibm.com>
Australia Development Lab, IBM