This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [RFC] Fix PR19401: always completely peel loops


Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

| On Thu, 14 Jan 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
| >
| > | On Jan 13, 2005, at 6:09 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > I disagree.  Optimizations should support language usages/patterns and
| > | > language idioms.  Not all languages have the same idioms or usage
| > | > patterns.  There are optimizations that can benefits to set of
| > | > languages; but not all of them fall into that observation.
| > | > We've been through this many times.
| > |
| > | Yes they might use different idioms but most of the time the
| > | optimizations don't do anything for the languages which use
| > | that feature so it should not matter to them.  Anything which turns
| >
| > You left out your statement I was objecting to:
| >
| >                                                 No optimization
| >   should be dependent on what front-end you used.
| He's right.

And I disagree.  Last time, that language-independent optimization
argument came up, it was about "inlining".  Obviously Ada people had
different expections from C people who had different expcetions from
C++ people.  Trying to use one-size-fits-all is one the sneaky
weakness of GCC insfrastructure. 

-- Gaby


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