cache misses in gcc 3.3

[Richard Henderson]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:53:17AM -0700, law@redhat.com wrote:
> While I expect there'll always be some constants or expressions that
> only gcse will catch (specifically those created by the lowering process),
> I expect that we can drop the memory tracking bits from gcse and maybe
> simplify other stuff (like constant/copy propagation).

Indeed, I would suspect that if there's much more to be gained except
for address expressions exposed by lowering (particularly by stuff like
symbol_ref -> high+lo_sum), then the tree-ssa optimizers aren't doing
their job.

I guess we'll see whether that guess is correct when we get that far.



r~