Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?

[Scott Robert Ladd]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Testing tree-ssa may seem a bit pre-mature, given that I haven't been able
> to compile my projects (which work fine with GCC 2.95-3.4) for many months
> now and that Scott uses heavy C++ as well, IIRC.

I've had some trouble with tree-ssa as well, although I haven't used it 
very much. I'm really looking forward to the Fortran 95.

I do both C and C++, although my work tends toward the object-oriented 
end of the spectrum. My benchmarks are both C and C++, including some 
tests written in both languages (i.e., the FFT benchmark uses 
complex<double> for C++ and the instrinsic double complex for C).

> Though testing and comparing 3.3 versus 3.4 seems an excellent idea;
> in fact, Scott, you may consider using 2.95 as a baseline which is
> still better than 3.x in many cases wrt. code generation for my stuff,
> surprisingly as that may sound.

I'll build and install 2.95.3, and add it to the test suite. I assume 
there's no real reason to look at 3.0.x, 3.1.x, or 3.2.x?

> And if you could also consider compile time with different optimizations,
> say -O1, -O3, and some mix of your choice, that definitely would be
> interesting.

That's another direction. I'm also trying to develop an accuracy test.

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing