|Register allocation firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-07-04)|
|Re: Register allocation email@example.com (TOUATI Sid) (2003-07-15)|
|Register allocation firstname.lastname@example.org (Rob Thorpe) (2003-07-21)|
|Re: Register allocation email@example.com (2003-07-21)|
|Re: Register allocation firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-07-21)|
|Re: Register allocation dany42NOSPAM@free.fr (Dan) (2003-07-21)|
|Re: Register allocation email@example.com (2003-07-31)|
|Register allocation firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-07-15)|
|[27 later articles]|
|From:||TOUATI Sid <email@example.com>|
|Date:||15 Jul 2003 23:40:36 -0400|
|Organization:||Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines|
|Posted-Date:||15 Jul 2003 23:40:35 EDT|
It is hard to say why a compiler didn't make this or that optimization.
Maybe the number of free registers isn't sufficient (I am not familiar
with the MCORE platform).
However, be sure that gcc isn't the most efficient compiler in terms of
code optimization, especially with backend opptimization. Maybe by using
the keywork "register" for your global variables, you can help gcc to
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.