This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
one question: tree-ssa vs no tree-ssa? no such global optimization exists.
- From: "J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:39:38 +0200
- Subject: one question: tree-ssa vs no tree-ssa? no such global optimization exists.
* Was it useful the implementation of the complicated tree-ssa code
waited for long time (many years)?
* Was it better the optimization without tree-ssa code?
If doesn't exist a method for global optimization to use tree-ssa then
* why did not it implement the simplest trial-and-error method for
local optimization (e.g. minima/maxima local) following the K.I.S.S.
principle without tree-ssa code?
* why was it too complicated adding several optimization's features as
instruction scheduling using tree-ssa code?
* was not it too easy adding several optimization's features with
trial-and-error and without tree-ssa code?
* why both performance's measures will be different if both are
following the same principle of local optimization when none uses
A) with tree-ssa => many KLOCS.
B) without tree-ssa and with trial-and-error => few KLOCS + more
optimization's features + could outperfom better.
There are other methods of search of minima/maxima local as Hill
Climbing, Beam Search, Genetic Algorithms, Simulated Annealing, Tabu
Search, A*, Alfa-Beta, Min-Max, Branch-and-Bound, Greedy, etc.
The extension with more optimization's features is more easy without
Sincerely, J.C. Pizarro ;)