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: We're out of tree codes; now what?

From: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, mark at codesourcery dot com, Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, dje at watson dot ibm dot com, doug dot gregor at gmail dot com, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu, mrs at apple dot com, njn at csse dot unimelb dot edu dot au, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:39:37 +0000
Subject: Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
References: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0703200808420.21298@mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au> <46030BD4.8000406@codesourcery.com> <10703222325.AA25217@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>

On Thursday 22 March 2007 23:24, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > 1. We can go to 9-bit codes.  They're slower, independent of checking.
> > Maybe we can make bitfields go faster, and get some of that back.
>
> I think it worth understanding why this is.  One or even two instructions
> should be lost in the noise on a modern machine when they are always
> accompanied by a load.

If nothing else you've got bigger code (increased icache pressure).

Paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Richard Kenner

References:
- Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Nicholas Nethercote
- Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?
  - From: Richard Kenner

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