This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Testing tree-ssa may seem a bit pre-mature, given that I haven't been able
to compile my projects (which work fine with GCC 2.95-3.4) for many months
now and that Scott uses heavy C++ as well, IIRC.
I've had some trouble with tree-ssa as well, although I haven't used it
very much. I'm really looking forward to the Fortran 95.
I do both C and C++, although my work tends toward the object-oriented
end of the spectrum. My benchmarks are both C and C++, including some
tests written in both languages (i.e., the FFT benchmark uses
complex<double> for C++ and the instrinsic double complex for C).
Though testing and comparing 3.3 versus 3.4 seems an excellent idea;
in fact, Scott, you may consider using 2.95 as a baseline which is
still better than 3.x in many cases wrt. code generation for my stuff,
surprisingly as that may sound.
I'll build and install 2.95.3, and add it to the test suite. I assume
there's no real reason to look at 3.0.x, 3.1.x, or 3.2.x?
And if you could also consider compile time with different optimizations,
say -O1, -O3, and some mix of your choice, that definitely would be
interesting.
That's another direction. I'm also trying to develop an accuracy test.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing