This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Additional BOFs for the GNU Cauldron?
- From: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:25:06 +0200
- Subject: Re: Additional BOFs for the GNU Cauldron?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine.LSU.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:19:54AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> There seems to be plenty of slots available on the 2nd track to
> schedule additional BOFs. So I'd gather if there is interest
> in discussing
> A) Unit testing (GIMPLE FE, RTL FE, the existing unit-testing),
> basically how people feel about moving forward here and how
> this would affect the current testsuite structure
> B) GIMPLE evolution. With LTO early debug we could finally remove
> some tree slack at some point in the compilation. There is
> also increasing need to somehow represent multiple outputs
> from a GIMPLE stmt (we've used complex types as a workaround
> in some cases) -- esp. if we would consider moving GIMPLE further
> into the backend area by lowering it and for example performing
> instruction selection on GIMPLE (we'd need to represent flag
> registers, etc.)
> C) Vectorizer. There's no vectorizer specific talk yet, the usual
> suspects would be an update from the we-rewrite-the-vectorizer
> folks and ideas about how to improve cost modeling.
> If there's no strong interest in any of the above we can schedule
> stuf as needed at the Cauldron itself as well.
I'd be interested in all of them.