This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: {PING] [PATCH] Sign extension elimination
- From: "Leehod Baruch" <leehod dot baruch at weizmann dot ac dot il>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: "Leehod Baruch" <leehod dot baruch at weizmann dot ac dot il>, "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "Toon Moene" <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "Mircea Namolaru" <namolaru at il dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, leehod at gmail dot com, "Roger Sayle" <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:08:16 +0300 (IDT)
- Subject: Re: {PING] [PATCH] Sign extension elimination
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 08:53:15PM +0300, Leehod Baruch wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:23:21AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> >> H. J. Lu wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:39:23AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> >> >> I'm not finding this discussion very illuminating.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm trying to understand whether the current SEE pass is ready for
>> >> >> inclusion in the compiler. Roger has approved it on technical
>> >> merits,
>> >> >> but HJ has raised the issue that somehow this pass is a bad thing
>> for
>> >> >> x86-64.
>> >> >
>> >> > The current SEE implemented isn't designed for x86-64 and doesn't
>> help
>> >> > x86-64 at all, if it doesn't make it worse on x86-64. But its
>> >> > infrastructure is needed for future x86-64 SEE work.
>> >>
>> >> OK. So, then, there's no problem with incorporating the SEE
>> >> implementation, and we proceed with that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Oh, it shouldn't be enabled for a target with any -On unless we can
>> > demonstrate it does something useful.
>> >
>> I guess you referred here to x86-64.
>
> Yes. I am curious how it performs for 32bit targets, like x86 or ppc32.
On ppc32 it is harmless but it doesn't help much either since the number
of optimization opportunities is very small.
Leehod.