Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> if you have testcases, I would be definitely interested.
I'm preparing for an impromtu business meeting, but I'll put together
test cases tonight and post them to Bugzilla. I should have at least two
small, well-defined cases.
..Scott
Hello,
> I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
> algorithms.
>
> I'm hesitant to file this as a "bug", given that -floop-optimize2 is a
> "new" replacement for the older loop optimizer.
>
> Is -floop-optimize2 still in development, and not ready yet -- or are
> the p
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> What version of GCC, if not the mainline, we don't care...
I'm speaking terms of mainline at the moment. I've just started running
Acovea through a new set of benchmarks with 4.1-cvs.
..Scott
Richard Guenther wrote:
> As the old loop optimizer is (hopefully) going away sooner or later
> small testcases are surely welcome that identify weak spots of the new
> loop optimizer.
I shall attempt the creation of small test cases, then. SHouldn;t be too
difficult, given the nature of my test c
On 6/21/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
> algorithms.
>
> I'm hesitant to file this as a "bug", given that -floop-optimize2 is a
> "new" replacement for the older loop optimizer.
>
> Is -floop-optimize2 still in
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 18:08, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
> algorithms.
>
> I'm hesitant to file this as a "bug", given that -floop-optimize2 is a
> "new" replacement for the older loop optimizer.
It is not that new anymore ;-) Bu
On Jun 21, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
algorithms.
What version of GCC, if not the mainline, we don't care that much as
the new tree based loop and rtl based loop (-floop-optimize2) optimizers
don't implement a
