Re: open64 versus gcc

ST <Sid-Touati@inria.fr>
6 Dec 2006 08:59:52 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: open64 versus gcc alewando@fala2005.com (A.L.) (2006-12-01)
Re: open64 versus gcc jthorn@aei.mpg-zebra.de (Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply) (2006-12-03)
Re: open64 versus gcc dnovillo@redhat.com (Diego Novillo) (2006-12-03)
Re: open64 versus gcc lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) (2006-12-03)
Re: open64 versus gcc bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu (Brooks Moses) (2006-12-03)
Re: open64 versus gcc mwso@earthlink.net (Gary Oblock) (2006-12-03)
Re: open64 versus gcc Sid-Touati@inria.fr (ST) (2006-12-06)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: ST <Sid-Touati@inria.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 6 Dec 2006 08:59:52 -0500
Organization: I.N.R.I.A Rocquencourt
References: 06-11-09406-11-100 06-11-104 06-11-113 06-11-120 06-11-124 06-12-032
Keywords: GCC, performance
Posted-Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:59:52 EST

> I was worked on a custom VLIW scheduler grafted into gcc 4.x and at
> the RTL level the alias information available wasn't all that great
> in my opinion. I think there is a fundementail lack of communication
> between the tree level and the RTL levels because though the initial
> RTL generated has a way to get at the tree level information the
> subsequent optimizations need to preserve it (which they don't.)




Yes I agree. There are some ongoing work on gcc aiming to improve this
point.


S


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.