This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] [RFC] loop index promotion pass
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:08:05 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] loop index promotion pass
- References: <email@example.com>
> This is just not true. Once something is in GCC, ripping it out again is
> virtually impossible.
I think this is a general argument, being applied inappropriately. The
nice thing about this whole TREE-SSA framework is that these passes are
pretty independent; ripping this out isn't going to be that involved.
You'll just remove this file.
> Why can't this pass just be implemented as part of ivcanon? So what if
> it takes extra work. Tough luck. It is the better long-term solution.
If there's a better way to do it, and someone wants to do that, that's
obviously good. I'd argue, however, that an existing patch, if it is
(a) already done, (b) correct, (c) doesn't impact compile-time
performance, and (d) improves performance is in fact worth
incorporating, if a better option is not actually likely to happen any
That may reflect bad taste on my part, but user's care about how the
compiler behaves, not what it looks like.
I realize I'm probably swimming upstream here, though. If y'all can
trick each other into figuring out a better way to implement this, and
especially into tricking someone into proving that way is better by
implementing it, even better!
(650) 331-3385 x713