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: From SSA back to GIMPLE.

From: "J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza at gmail dot com>
To: "David Edelsohn" <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:48:24 +0200
Subject: Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.
References: <998d0e4a0710220658t37d6ca23m252ac15645d94292@mail.gmail.com> <rakdver@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20071022151043.GA1290@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <200710221530.l9MFUx6Z030992@makai.watson.ibm.com>

2007/10/22, David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>         Please keep the discussion on a technical level and not about
> someone's fluency with the English language.
>
> Gracias, David
>
>

Thanks David,

i'm very bad english speaker but i'm a good person.

If SSA was made to permit to eliminate prematurely dead-code and to
optimize partially the register allocation then

why is hard to optimize unrolling loop, inlining code, instructions
scheduling, etc because of the SSA's presence?

Don't forget, "Premature optimization is the root of all evil".

    J.C. Pizarro

Follow-Ups:
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.
  - From: Diego Novillo

References:
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.
  - From: J.C. Pizarro
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.
  - From: David Edelsohn

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