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: An unusual Performance approach using Synthetic registers

From: Andy Walker <ja_walker at earthlink dot net>
To: Tom Lord <lord at emf dot net>,dewar at gnat dot com
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:41:08 -0600
Subject: Re: An unusual Performance approach using Synthetic registers
References: <20030105134518.DD9FEF2D5D@nile.gnat.com> <200301051359.FAA26780@emf.net>

On Sunday 05 January 2003 07:59 am, Tom Lord wrote:
>        If you decide to allocate a base register, as was proposed at
>        one point,
>
> Bah.  I missed that (misread while skimming, actually).  Maybe his
> implementation approach is bogus after all.  Why not use the FP, if
> it's there, or SP when FP is omitted.

I used the ecx register initially, because, at the time, I did not know how 
"fixed" the frame pointer was.  If it changed during module execution, all 
the Synthetic regs would be hosed.  

The hard frame pointer is fixed, I am using it, the Synthetic regs are not 
hosed.

Andy

References:
- Re: An unusual Performance approach using Synthetic registers
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: An unusual Performance approach using Synthetic registers
  - From: Tom Lord

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