[Bug middle-end/19721] [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
hubicka at ucw dot cz
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Wed Feb 2 11:51:00 GMT 2005
------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-02-02 11:50 -------
Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
>
> ------- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-02-02 09:21 -------
> Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
>
> On Monday 31 January 2005 22:35, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> > Note I would _STRONGLY_ recommend people look at more than just the
> > compiler when evaluating the old CSE code. In particular it is
> > important that we look at things like 64bit arithmetic on 32bit
> > hosts (which happens often in kernels, but not nearly as often
> > in user level benchmarks).
>
> I was told crafty has a lot of 64bits arithmetic, so the -m32
> numbers for crafty should be an indication of possible regressions
> in that area. And those numbers look OK to me.
Crafty is special by using 64bit values as bitmaps rather then numbers,
so it don't do addition/multiplication and friends much that produces
most lousy artefacts.
Honza
>
> If I can find some time, I'll try another benchmark suite to see
> the effects of CSE path following are significant enough to still
> be worth its cost.
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list