On 24/11/2010 14:17, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I don't see why RTL optimizers should be different from tree optimizers.
I thought half the point of tree-ssa in the first place was to separate
optimisation out from target-specific stuff and do it on an independent level?
On 24/11/2010 15:32, Richard Guenther wrote:
> As we are moving towards doing more target dependent optimizations
> on the tree level this doesn't sound like a sustainable opinion.
Wait, we're doing that? Isn't that the same mistake we made earlier?
On 24/11/2010 14:17, Richard Guenther wrote:
> And we don't want to pay the overhead of hookization every target
> dependent constant just for the odd guys who want multi-target
> compilers that have those constants differing.
Why not? Precisely how big is this cost? Back in the old days we all used
to want to avoid virtual functions, because of the cost of a
function-call-through-pointer, but that certainly isn't justified any more and
may not even have been then.
> a multi-target compiler where the hooks are in shared loadable
> modules
It's not just Diego who envisions that, I think it would be an excellent
long-term goal too. And I thought that was why all the work to hookize macros
was motivated in the first place.
cheers,
DaveK
