tree-ssa status (was: Re: Dropping of old loop optimizer)

[Diego Novillo]

On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 15:37, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >
> >> There is a difference between things that "work fine" and things that
> >> "are ready".
> >>
> > Yup.
> >
> >> What, for example, is the compile time performance on the branch?  
> >> SPEC
> >> results compared to mainline?  If I correctly interpret Diego's SPEC
> >> tester results, it does not quite look like it's there yet.
> >>
> > Yes, we are not quite there yet.
> >
> > Since you brought it up, I got curious and gathered a few stats.
> > This is how the branch looks today in terms of compile time
> > compared with mainline:
> >
> > - All times are in seconds.
> > - All the compilers are built with ENABLE_CHECKING.
> > - Bootstrap times are for all default languages (C, C++, Java,
> >   Fortran and ObjC).
> 
> Is this still without copy propagation, or is that in a tree you used 
> here?
>
We still don't have an implementation of copy propagation in the
branch.  Copyprop is one of the transformations that needs the real
unSSA conversion.

All the figures I posted are taken with pristine copies of tree-ssa and
mainline as of 2003-02-26.


Diego.