This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Splitting of virtual definitions (aka. V_MUST_DEF)

From: Geert Bosch <bosch at gnat dot com>
To: law at redhat dot com
Cc: Brian Booth <bbooth at redhat dot com>,GCC-Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:01:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Splitting of virtual definitions (aka. V_MUST_DEF)
References: <1086615906.16539.14360.camel@toss-off.toronto.redhat.com> <355D05E8-B8A8-11D8-8FAE-000A959A128E@gnat.com> <1086664133.18174.41.camel@speedy>

On Jun 7, 2004, at 23:08, Jeffrey A Law wrote:

Having a V_MUST_DEF allows us to do some interest things as it
indicates a more precise level of aliasing information.  ie, it
allows us to say that a highly specific area of memory is going
to be changed.  With that information we can improve redundant
load/store elimination in addition to improving alias analysis.


I understand, but when we add 3% to compile time as a result
of this, we should have a double look at the data structures
we use. How do other compilers record this data?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Splitting of virtual definitions (aka. V_MUST_DEF)
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [PATCH] Splitting of virtual definitions (aka. V_MUST_DEF)
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

References:
- [PATCH] Splitting of virtual definitions (aka. V_MUST_DEF)
  - From: Brian Booth
- Re: [PATCH] Splitting of virtual definitions (aka. V_MUST_DEF)
  - From: Geert Bosch
- Re: [PATCH] Splitting of virtual definitions (aka. V_MUST_DEF)
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

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