This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop optimizer issues
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:35:38 -0600
- Subject: Re: Loop optimizer issues
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20030702211618.GA26127@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak wri
tes:
>Hello,
>
>> >> > just for sure -- nobody will protest if I drop handling of libcalls
>> >> > in new loop optimizer? This definitely should not be neccesary to hand
>le
>> >> > on rtl level.
>> >>
>> >> How do you plan to handle ports where multiplication or addition
>> >> requires a libcall?
>>
>> Zdenek> in no special way. The optimizations done on ast level would then
>have
>> Zdenek> higher priority for optimizing them when possible.
>>
>> Does "new loop optimizer" refer to a revision to the RTL loop
>> optimizer or a re-write of the loop optimizer in the Tree-SSA
>> infrastructure?
>
>rtl one.
>
>> LIBCALLs should not be present in GIMPLE, should they?
>
>I hope so; this is exactly why I would prefer to handle things there
>rather than figting it later in rtl.
There are no libcalls in gimple.
jeff