Duncan Sands wrote:
I hope it was clear from my email that by "gcc" I was talking about the gcc
optimizers and code generators and not the gcc frontends. If the dragonegg
project shows that feeding the output of the gcc frontends into the LLVM
optimizers and code generators results in better code, then gcc can always
change to using the LLVM optimizers and code generators, resulting in a
better
compiler. I don't see how this is gcc the compiler shooting itself in
the foot.
Someone already showed a couple of years ago that if you write a
"backend" that generates C code, and feed that code back into GCC, you
can get a 2 times speedup on some Fortran code.
This excercise is not useful, unless you can point out exactly what's
wrong with today's GCC optimization passes.
Cheers,
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
