Compilation performance comparison of 3.5.0 and TreeSSA trees on MICO sources as requested in: [tree-ssa] Merge status 2004-05-03

[Mike Stump]

On Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at 03:10 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Thanks.  -O0 is a known loser right now.  The gimplification process
> tends to create extremely bloated RTL.  That can only be fixed by
> introducing simplistic tree optimization passes at O0.  I see this as a
> post-merge exercise, as well.

After asking around here, our position is that while we would like to 
see no regressions on compile time at -O0, we do _not_ want to hold up 
the merge to mainline for it.