This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: law at redhat dot com, GCC List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:32:47 -0800
- Subject: Re: IMA vs tree-ssa
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200402270021.i1R0Liju019534@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <A0563446-68C0-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com> <C78A3766-6953-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com> <D7F2B76E-6E0A-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>
Dale Johannesen wrote:
This bit seems to be working, but doesn't solve the entire problem by
any means.
The tree-based aliasing and structure-scalarizing code also think
there's only
one copy of a struct type node, and work off pointers. There may be
more places
I haven't found yet; can you think of any? (Most of the SPEC failures
seem to be
due to aliasing; it thinks different copies of a struct from different
files do not
alias, when in fact they do. This breaks lots of things.)
I believe that we should not hold up the tree-ssa merge for IMA.
Instead, we should just let IMA be broken for a while.
It's a new feature, not one that people have gotten used to at this
point. It's a valuable optimization, but it's a problem, we should move
on without it and then add it back later.
That's my opinion, not an official SC position by any means.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com