This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Loop optimizer issues
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:54:07 +0200
- Subject: Re: Loop optimizer issues
- References: <200307272258.SAA27974@makai.watson.ibm.com> <1059347334.3641.60.camel@steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl>
Hello,
> Op ma 28-07-2003, om 00:58 schreef David Edelsohn:
> > If this is a rewrite of the RTL loop optimizer, could it go on the
> > GCC 3.4 trunk?
>
> Hmm, mainline is in stage 2, so itn't that too late? According to the
> development plan, "During this period, major changes may not be merged
> from branches". This would be a major change from a branch.
>
> Also, look at the deficiencies list. Can all those missing pieces be
> provided in time for 3.4?
the answer is basically no -- i.e. I could, but if it is to be in some
reasonable time (so that the developement plan is not heavily violated),
it could hardly be considered enough tested. Anyway, this change would
be way too much intrusive for current stage of development, IMO.
> (Do they make a difference?)
some of them do. Especially handling of subregs is not really good now,
which would result in regressions on some 64-bit systems.
Zdenek