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] Fix PR43464: update loop closed SSA form once copy prop is done


On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 17:19, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/22/10, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 04:52, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>>>> Simply drop the gimple_num_phi_args == 1 check from the code that
>>>> tries to preserve loop-closed SSA form.
>>>
>>> This change passed bootstrap and test on amd64-linux.
>>> As I said on the PR, this change would break both h264ref
>>> and gamess with -O3. ?See
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/gcc-graphite-test/browse_thread/thread/f5b0d912e90b598f
>>>
>>> And there I come back again to Steven, and reiterate:
>>> instead of just adding more bugs like this, why not adding
>>> as I proposed a call to rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa
>>> that would do the right thing?
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>
>> Because your idea of "the right thing" is IMNSHO wrong.
>>
>> You, and many people like you, need to come down out of your academic
>> ivory tower and start thinking about the implications of your costly
>> let's-add-new-passes approach to solving bugs on the usability of the
>> compiler for the large majority of users who don't care one tiny bit
>> about your fancy new niche LNO optimizations.
>>
>> Or in short: cost-benefit is against you.
>>
>
> Why do you take it at the personal level? ?You should calm down a bit!

Well, sorry but I didn't start making this personal. Read back your
reply to my comments in the PR audit trail and reconsider whether
perhaps you provoked this kind of reaction.

See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43464#c5

Specifically, quoting: "I don't think compile time matters", as a
comment from you, doesn't really seem to recognize the sentiments in
the general user base of gcc (or perhaps at least the most vocal once
like lkml) that gcc is already way too slow and regressing with every
release.

Anyway, do as you see fit, I honestly don't care.

Ciao!
Steven


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