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: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
To: "J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza at gmail dot com>
Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:02:44 -0400
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> <998d0e4a0710221248s2fcbeb12v70b9a14a913c0240@mail.gmail.com>

J.C. Pizarro wrote:

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

None of these things are particluarly hard with SSA.  I'm not sure I
understand what you are trying to get at.

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

Indeed.  That is one of the reasons why GCC has been restructured this
way.  And the job is still not done.

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
- Re: From SSA back to GIMPLE.
  - From: J.C. Pizarro

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