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]

Re: GCC 3.5 Plan, Take 2

From: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, bje at au dot ibm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:48:05 -0400
Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 Plan, Take 2
References: <41201242.10204@codesourcery.com> <9568AD0E-EF2D-11D8-959D-00039351ED8A@physics.uc.edu> <200408161311.13574.stevenb@suse.de>

Steven Bosscher wrote:

Also note that we may actually be generating much better code on non-x86
than older GCCs, but nobody is tracking performance on, say, ppc, ia64,
or MIPS, in public.

If we don't hear from people representing a specific architecture, then I think we can assume that code generation is (at least) "good enough" for their needs. It's not as if IBM, SGI, and Intel couldn't do their own benchmarks and report the results. ;)

..Scott

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing

References:
- GCC 3.5 Plan, Take 2
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: GCC 3.5 Plan, Take 2
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: GCC 3.5 Plan, Take 2
  - From: Steven Bosscher

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]