Steve Ellcey wrote: > I understand the desire not to add optimizations just for benchmarks but > we do know other compilers have added this optimization for coremark > (See > http://community.arm.com/groups/embedded/blog/2013/02/21/coremark-and-compiler-performance) > and the 13 people on the CC list for this bug certainly shows interest in > having it even if it is just for a benchmark. Does 'competing against other > compilers' sound better then 'optimizing for a benchmark'?
I definitely would like to see GCC trunk do this transform. What about we integrate the new pass, and then when jump-threading manages to catch the coremark loop, we remove the pass? Thanks, Sebastian
