This is the mail archive of the gcc@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] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Tim Prince <tprince at computer dot org>,"S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,"'gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 11 Jun 2002 10:47:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFC] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95
References: <4195D82C2DB1D211B9910008C7C9B06F01F37285@lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl><20020611032538.C2D982CDD3@inet1.ywave.com><20020610211054.A1050@redhat.com><20020611103835.GG30036@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz><1023800221.1209.0.camel@shadowfax> <20020611135021.GD958@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 09:50, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> What are the consequences on code size/perfomrance of enabling these
> bits?  I am always running into performance problems when I implement
> some idea of reugualizing CFG on RTL level...
> 
Dunno.  I haven't done any testing on these passes.  Sebastian mentioned
code growth, but I don't know of any systematic testing.

Diego.

References:
- [RFC] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95
  - From: S. Bosscher
- Re: [RFC] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95
  - From: Tim Prince
- Re: [RFC] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [RFC] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [RFC] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [RFC] Extension of SIMPLE for Fortran 95
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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