This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposal for merging scalar-storage-order branch into mainline
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:01:09 -0600
- Subject: Re: Proposal for merging scalar-storage-order branch into mainline
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <2354857 dot 0uXrE6NL1R at polaris> <CAFiYyc0fmZcb1SYm5NfObE-bL3T0Z0vs6yNraesAfH+jb90pHA at mail dot gmail dot com> <24307404 dot yEd3bIJVu1 at polaris> <CAFiYyc3UYWMKCE=qRwY=iPjtscB3o3nyQBLDBjLrnX4d5NKNvg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 06/09/2015 04:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Seems like it'd be a great way to test the effectiveness of our bswap
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Eric Botcazou <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
What's the reason to not expose the byte swapping operations earlier, like
on GIMPLE? (or even on GENERIC?)
That would be too heavy, every load and store in GENERIC/GIMPLE would have an
associated byte swapping operation, although you don't know if they will be
needed in the end. For example, if the structure is scalarized, they are not.
Yes, but I'd expect them to be optimized away (well, hopefully).
Anwyay, and I thought
use of the feature would be rare so that "every load and store" is
still very few?