On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 12-10-15 12:49 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Getting rid of reload always seemed like a pipe dream, and if the only >> known drawback of this replacement is that it takes a while on extreme >> testcases, that's an amazing achievement. (Not to say compile time >> isn't important, just that there were so many other hurdles to overcome.)
Just to be clear, LRA now does no worse from a compile time POV than, say, tree-ssa-live. Most of the scalability problems have been addressed. > It is my second attempt. The first one was YARA project. I got a lot of > experience from this project and knowledge how not to do this. > LRA will be still a long lasting project. I don't think I found all > weirdness of reload just trying 8 targets (fixing one bug on one target > frequently resulted in new bugs on other targets so it required to do > frequently cardinal changes to the original code). Only after trying the 8 > targets I got feeling that this approach could well. Hats off to you, Vlad, for your years of effort on improving GCC's RA! Ciao! Steven