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: From SSA back to GIMPLE

From: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Diego Novillo" <dnovillo at google dot com>, "Jose ." <kasty dot jose at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:23:57 -0700
Subject: Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE
References: <38f791d40710220412l6633319bi77ad3479327f8140@mail.gmail.com> <471FDC41.6040809@google.com> <cb9d34b20710241818j5f06e3edwdab43faf5178b2c1@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/24/07, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> > We are also thinking about lowering GIMPLE a bit further and delay
> > the transition into RTL.
>
> Diego, can you be more specific about what parts you think have to be
> lowered more from GIMPLE?

TLS accesses for PIC mode is one example of where it would be nice to
rerun some CSE type for the function call (this would be able to get
rid of libcalls at this point).

Real address selection at the tree level, maybe a scheduler too.

-- Pinski

References:
- From SSA back to GIMPLE
  - From: Jose .
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE
  - From: Sebastian Pop

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