------- Additional Comments From hubicka at ucw dot cz 2005-02-02 11:50 ------- Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches
> > ------- Additional Comments From stevenb at suse dot de 2005-02-02 09:21 > ------- > Subject: Re: [meta-bug] optimizations that CSE still catches > > On Monday 31 January 2005 22:35, law at redhat dot com wrote: > > Note I would _STRONGLY_ recommend people look at more than just the > > compiler when evaluating the old CSE code. In particular it is > > important that we look at things like 64bit arithmetic on 32bit > > hosts (which happens often in kernels, but not nearly as often > > in user level benchmarks). > > I was told crafty has a lot of 64bits arithmetic, so the -m32 > numbers for crafty should be an indication of possible regressions > in that area. And those numbers look OK to me. Crafty is special by using 64bit values as bitmaps rather then numbers, so it don't do addition/multiplication and friends much that produces most lousy artefacts. Honza > > If I can find some time, I'll try another benchmark suite to see > the effects of CSE path following are significant enough to still > be worth its cost. > > > -- > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721
