This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Patch ping
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gp at suse dot de>
- Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:50:58 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Patch ping
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312031926340.9962@srinivasan.suse.de>, Gerald Pfeife
r writes:
>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
>> yes, this is from where the idea is taken; you may note that I did not
>> like it very much, on the other hand, saving 50 bytes on every fifth
>> statement of a program seemed good enough argument to me.
>
>Do you have some data, for example for PR8361?
>
>If you can show improvement for real-world code, that'll certainly help
>your cause. ;-)
I don't think so in this case. It's a fundamentally bad idea to have the
arms of a COND_EXPR have different meanings depending on where we are
in the compiler.
If the memory savings are huge, then that would argue that we should be
looking at the problem and looking to use a different kind of node; it
does not mean that we should be mucking up COND_EXPRs in this way.
jeff