This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC Optimisation, Part 0: Introduction

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Nathan Froyd <froydnj at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Yuan Pengfei <coolypf at qq dot com>, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis at gmx dot net>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:20:15 +0200
Subject: Re: GCC Optimisation, Part 0: Introduction
References: <tencent_4BC1F38C7378A1F01605DADC@qq.com> <4DBA6660.50901@gnu.org> <20110429141530.GT23480@codesourcery.com>

On 04/29/2011 04:15 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:

> * cxx_binding should be 16 bytes, not 20.


Not your fault, but comments like this on SpeedupAreas are so opaque as
to be useless. *Why* should cxx_binding be 16 bytes?  Should we take
the next member out and have a VEC someplace instead of chaining?  Are
we duplicating information in the members themselves?  Etc.

Sorry, you're right. It's about cache lines I guess, and moving the bitfields into one of the pointers.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC Optimisation, Part 0: Introduction
  - From: Nathan Froyd

References:
- Re:GCC Optimisation, Part 0: Introduction
  - From: Yuan Pengfei
- Re: GCC Optimisation, Part 0: Introduction
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: GCC Optimisation, Part 0: Introduction
  - From: Nathan Froyd

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