This is the mail archive of the 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]


> Yes, but that's what we compiler guys are supposed to be good at.
> Where reasonable, we should try to program as we would like our users
> to program.  If the only way to get good code out of GCC is with giant
> macros-of-doom, then we haven't done our jobs properly.
I think that for_each_rtx construct just sometimes tend you to change a way
algorithm works somewhat and still compilers are far away from being able
to repair such an problem.

BTW making for_each_rtx inline is just another papering around - gcc should
be able to do inlining around compilation units once...
> I agree taht being able to include small expressions directly inline
> seems convenient.  
> Still, let's continue to use the function paradigm for now.  Frankly,
> I think we can get a large amount of the speedup that way, and that
> we'll get more over time as we improve the rest of the compiler.
OK. Lets try - I will send then the patch containing same code in for_each_rtx
and we can decide to make it inline eventually. Still there isn't equivalent
for the _PUSH macro, so many function will still have to recurse explicitly.

> --
> Mark Mitchell         
> CodeSourcery, LLC     

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