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: Memory partitioning considered harmful (!?)

From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: "Richard Guenther" <rguenther at suse dot de>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dnovillo at redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:25:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Memory partitioning considered harmful (!?)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701291419580.3994@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4aca3dc20701290610v26f5f252i23ca7f1cac3426b0@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701291515050.3994@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>

On 1/29/07, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On 1/29/07, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:

> There are certainly better partitioning heuristics than what we do
> now, and i know diego has said he welcomes any tuning of the
> heuristics we have to get better results.
> ways to partition than we do now.

Btw. can someone do an exemplary "fixing" of lim / lsm to "look at" MPTs
to disambiguate the loads/stores again?  I recall this was possible
somehow.


While possible, you are probably better off making the partitioning do
what you want :)

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
Novell / SUSE Labs

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Memory partitioning considered harmful (!?)
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- Memory partitioning considered harmful (!?)
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: Memory partitioning considered harmful (!?)
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: Memory partitioning considered harmful (!?)
  - From: Richard Guenther

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