This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] DCE with control dependence again (with numbers, fora change)
Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> writes:
> On Saturday 17 January 2004 01:34, law@redhat.com wrote:
>> In message <87llo7ju9y.fsf@codesourcery.com>, "Zack Weinberg" writes:
>> >The level of testing being asked - and done - for this change is
>> >wildly out of proportion to the level of testing being done for other
>> >changes going onto the tree-ssa branch.
>>
>> That's because we have already been down this design decision before.
>> Steven effectively wants to bring back code we threw out about 6 months
>> ago because it had some significant compile time performance concerns and
>> the increased complexity bought us nearly nothing in terms of generating
>> better code.
>
> You are right.
>
> Not that we ever had this code on the tree-ssa branch -- you just
> said you had tried it. And clearly my attempts are more successful
> than yours given that you claimed (4 months ago) that using control
> dependence in DCE would significantly slow down the compiler, and I
> have shown that it need not be so. But still you are right. Just
> because I have shown the numbers and you have just casted doubt
> without the proof that I've been trying to give.
>
> Consider my patch withdrawn.
We have a valued contributor, and a valuable contribution. Perhaps
not perfect, but certainly not something which produced "significant
compile time performance concerns [and] nearly nothing in terms of
generating better code". (I cannot speak to the complexity of the
algorithm.)
One person stonewalls the patch, asking for - I reiterate - testing
wildly out of proportion to other changes. As a result the patch is
withdrawn and the contributor is frustrated, and perhaps less inclined
to make further contributions.
This is precisely the sort of outcome that I was hoping could be
avoided.
disappointedly,
zw