This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Scheduler:LLVM vs gcc, which is better
- From: lin zuojian <manjian2006 at gmail dot com>
- To: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:33:35 +0800
- Subject: Re: Scheduler:LLVM vs gcc, which is better
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140311015901 dot GA23856 at ubuntu> <CAGCO0KgGdkT_RxpLSP08dX7sQep29ENriyVmYgJogC9kQ5-rWg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:11:43PM -0700, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:59 PM, lin zuojian <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I read LLVM code for a while,and a question raise:Whose scheduler is
> > better?
> > LLVM brings in the DAG,and make it look important just like IR or
> > MachineInst.But is that necessary?I don't see what kind of problem
> > it tries to solve.
> > From the pipeline of the compiler, LLVM can not do sched2.Is that
> > suck?
> I clearly can't speak for GCC developers, but as an LLVM developer I
> have to say, this seems like a (somewhat rudely phrased) question for
> the LLVM mailing lists where there are people more familiar with the
> LLVM internals. Happy to reply in more depth there (or here if folks
> are actually interested).
I just ask for opinions.I think many GCC developers do familiar with
the opponent.If I ask in the LLVM mailing list, I have to worry
about If they are familiar with GCC, too(what's sched2 pass?).