This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Let's backport speedups from 3.4 to 3.3
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- To: k_fukui at highway dot ne dot jp
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com, zack at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:39:40 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Let's backport speedups from 3.4 to 3.3
- References: <200302211756.CAA22752@mail.highway.ne.jp>
> From: Kaoru Fukui <k_fukui at highway dot ne dot jp>
>
> On 21 Feb, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > > From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
> > >
> > > "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu> writes:
> > >
> > > | > From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
> > > | >
> > > | > Just to make sure I'm clear, I don't object in any way to
> > > | > backporting changes that speed up the compiler -- as long as
> > > | > the person approving them feels that they're safe. Let's not
> > > | > do anything too radical, but relatively simple changes are
> > > | > fine.
> > > |
> > > | Are there any more anyone would like to recommend for consideration?
> > >
> > > Not one that is currently on mainline.
> > > -- Gaby
> >
> > Ok, I'm asking because various people claim 3.4 is faster than 3.3
> > (independent of 3.4-only things like PCH.) I wonder if that's still
> > the case.
> >
>
> mainline 3.4 was included Zack's BI tree which was just faster than the
> mainline(this is 3.3 now) on that tme.
> Kaoru
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that there is a
patch we should backport to 3.3? Or are you saying that this patch is
now in 3.3 and made 3.3 as fast as 3.4?
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu