On 10/24/07, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We are also thinking about lowering GIMPLE a bit further and delay
> > the transition into RTL.
>
> Diego, can you be more specific about what parts you think have to be
> lowered more
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Diego, can you be more specific about what parts you think have to be
> lowered more from GIMPLE?
It's something we've discussed on and off for a couple of years. One
idea is to expose in GIMPLE target features like word size, pointer
arithmetic, etc. It's not something t
On 10/24/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are also thinking about lowering GIMPLE a bit further and delay
> the transition into RTL.
Diego, can you be more specific about what parts you think have to be
lowered more from GIMPLE?
Together with Richard Guenther, we're planing to se
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> why is hard to optimize unrolling loop, inlining code, instructions
> scheduling, etc because of the SSA's presence?
None of these things are particluarly hard with SSA. I'm not sure I
understand what you are trying to get at.
> Don't forget, "Premature optimization is the
Jose . wrote:
> I understand that the whole process of compiling a C file involves
> GENERIC->GIMPLE->SSA->GIMPLE->RTL
Yes.
> If I'm not wrong, GCC currently cannot go from SSA to RTL directly.
It can, but it doesn't.
> What I don't understand is what happens with all versions of the same
> va
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:48:24PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> why is hard to optimize unrolling loop, inlining code, instructions
> scheduling, etc because of the SSA's presence?
There's nothing about SSA that makes any of those things harder.
In any case, the use of SSA is fairly fundamental t
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> IMHO, in the future, GCC as a base an experimal compiler IS NOT good
> because of enormeous complexities to design this optimizing compiler.
>
> My reasons to select a good base are:
>
> * the programming language to develop a complex optimizing compiler
> MUST TO be high-le
2007/10/22, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > J C Pizarro writes:
>
> JC> In the future, GCC will no be the best compiler, the best compiler
> JC> could be a powerful compiler with inferences's machines, learning
> JC> machines, logic machines, etc where the men don't think in the
>
Dave Korn wrote:
> On 22 October 2007 19:32, skaller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 16:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know what you mean, but yes, there is value in going to SSA and
> >> back. SSA makes global optimization much easier, and that's the main
> >> improvement in
> J C Pizarro writes:
JC> In the future, GCC will no be the best compiler, the best compiler
JC> could be a powerful compiler with inferences's machines, learning
JC> machines, logic machines, etc where the men don't think in the
JC> specific algorithms.
There are a few research effor
2007/10/22, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Pizzaro,
>
> > Is not it easy to write 3 stages GENERIC->GIMPLE->RTL instead of 5 stages?
> >
> > Is meaningful the optimization of the complex bi-transformation
> > GIMPLE->SSA->GIMPLE?
> >
> > Is more powerful GENERIC->GIMPLE->RTL +
2007/10/22, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> > Are they mixed into a single
> >> variable declaration? Are they treated as separate variables and
> >> handled later by the register allocator?
>
> If possible, the former. If not possible, they are kept as separate
>
2007/10/22, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please keep the discussion on a technical level and not about
> someone's fluency with the English language.
>
> Gracias, David
>
>
Thanks David,
i'm very bad english speaker but i'm a good person.
If SSA was made to permit to elimi
On 22 October 2007 19:32, skaller wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 16:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> I don't know what you mean, but yes, there is value in going to SSA and
>> back. SSA makes global optimization much easier, and that's the main
>> improvement introduced in GCC 4.0 and later r
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 16:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I don't know what you mean, but yes, there is value in going to SSA and
> back. SSA makes global optimization much easier, and that's the main
> improvement introduced in GCC 4.0 and later refined.
IMHO gcc was pretty crappy until 4.
Please keep the discussion on a technical level and not about
someone's fluency with the English language.
Gracias, David
Dear Mr. Pizzaro,
> Is not it easy to write 3 stages GENERIC->GIMPLE->RTL instead of 5 stages?
>
> Is meaningful the optimization of the complex bi-transformation
> GIMPLE->SSA->GIMPLE?
>
> Is more powerful GENERIC->GIMPLE->RTL + "trial-and-error" local optimization?
>
>Sincerely, J.C. Piza
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Are they mixed into a single
variable declaration? Are they treated as separate variables and
handled later by the register allocator?
If possible, the former. If not possible, they are kept as separate
variables. This happens if the subscripted variables have overlappi
Jose wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is my first post in this mailing list. I'm trying to understand
> GCC 4 as part of my research, but I'm finding questions which are
> difficult to answer just with online documentation.
>
> I understand that the whole process of compiling a C file involves
> GENERIC->
Hi all,
this is my first post in this mailing list. I'm trying to understand
GCC 4 as part of my research, but I'm finding questions which are
difficult to answer just with online documentation.
I understand that the whole process of compiling a C file involves
GENERIC->GIMPLE->SSA->GIMPLE->RTL
20 matches
Mail list logo
