[Bug middle-end/19721] [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches

["hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz  2005-02-02 11:50 -------
Subject: Re:  [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches

> 
> ------- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de  2005-02-02 09:21 -------
> Subject: Re:  [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
> 
> On Monday 31 January 2005 22:35, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> > Note I would _STRONGLY_ recommend people look at more than just the
> > compiler when evaluating the old CSE code.  In particular it is
> > important that we look at things like 64bit arithmetic on 32bit
> > hosts (which happens often in kernels, but not nearly as often
> > in user level benchmarks).
> 
> I was told crafty has a lot of 64bits arithmetic, so the -m32
> numbers for crafty should be an indication of possible regressions
> in that area.  And those numbers look OK to me.

Crafty is special by using 64bit values as bitmaps rather then numbers,
so it don't do addition/multiplication and friends much that produces
most lousy artefacts.

Honza
> 
> If I can find some time, I'll try another benchmark suite to see
> the effects of CSE path following are significant enough to still
> be worth its cost.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721