Re: GCSE store motion

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <23630000.1021488625@gandalf.codesourcery.com>, Mark Mitchell writes
:
 > 
 > 
 > --On Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:38:03 AM -0600 "law@redhat.com" 
 > <law@redhat.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > In message <17950000.1021482109@gandalf.codesourcery.com>, Mark Mitchell
 > > writes:  > Dan's claim seems to be that nobody has a real-world
 > > application that  > shows an improvement with store motion enabled.  If
 > > that's true, we  > don't need that optimization enabled.  We can keep the
 > > code, and use  > it when it becomes more useful, but there's no reason to
 > > be running  > that pass.
 > >  >
 > >  > If, however, someone has real applications that show measurable
 > >  > improvents -- the Linux kernel would certainly qualify -- then we
 > >  > should rethink the issue.
 > 
 > > Would games on a very popular game console work?
 > 
 > Sure!  Do we have any numbers at all?  (I know you said it was difficult
 > to measure...)
 > 
 > I think there are two issues:
 > 
 > 1. Correctness.
 > 
 > 2. Efficacy.
 > 
 > There seems to be some debate on (1), but assuming that the optimization
 > is correct, we're down to (2).  As long as the optimization doesn't
 > take unreasonably long to run, and as long as it helps some real programs
 > without hurting most of them, we should have it.
Given Toon's reference -fno-automatic or whatever it was, we can probably
address #2 by running spec with that switch -- once with LSM, once
without LSM.

Maybe the folks at SuSE could cover that since it seems they have a
good infrastructure for this kind of thing.
jeff