This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>,Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>,Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:54:56 -0500
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- References: <200311101947.hAAJlXuS019837@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
But you're version is doing more work than the old one in particular
keeping
the CFG up-to-date. Now it is likely the case that keeping the CFG
up-to-date
isn't a huge cost, but then again, if you haven't measured it, how do
we
actually know what that cost is?
Simply saying it cannot be slower does not make it a fact.
I'd also like to point out that adding "time" in front of the "make
bootstrap" you do before and after the patch isn't all that difficult.