> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:00:00 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > > > How about [2]: > > "LTO is quite promising. Actually it is in line or even better with > improvement got from other compilers (pathscale is the most convenient > compiler to check lto separately: lto gave there upto 5% improvement > on SPECFP2000 and 3.5% for SPECInt2000 making compiler about 50% > slower and generated code size upto 30% bigger). LTO in GCC actually > results in significant code reduction which is quite different from > pathscale. That is one of rare cases on my mind when a specific > optimization works actually better in gcc than in other optimizing > compilers." > > [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-10/msg00155.html
PathScale is in the process of making significant improvements to our IPA optimization and welcome feedback and more testers in March. Please email me directly if you're a current customer or not. Thanks! Christopher
