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] |
Diego Novillo wrote:On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 12:42, Joe Buck wrote:One possible representation in GIMPLE would be a flag indicating that aYeah. We sort of discussed adding additional PLUS_EXPR operands and/or
temporary can be, well, I'll call it "refactored" (feel free to suggest a
better word). That is, given GIMPLE code like
t1 = a + b; t2 = t1 + c; e = t2 + d;
if the original Fortran input was
e = a + b + c + d
then t1 and t2 would be tagged as refactorable, while if the original input were
d = ((a + b) + c) + d
then t1 and t2 would not be so tagged. In the first case, we would probably want to produce
t1 = a + b; t2 = c + d; e = t1 + t2;
since the first two additions can now be performed in parallel. But this transformation is not legal in the second case.
attributes at last year's summit. But I think that was the extent of
it. IIRC, there was beer involved, so I doubt anybody was taking notes.
Hmm, this is usually the point where we get the LLVM people tell us what they are doing here... I consider not being able to do something about this in tree-ssa a major defect, too.
Richard.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |