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
variable
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
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 send
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
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 from
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
If
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
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
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. Pizarro
everyone
Please keep the discussion on a technical level and not about
someone's fluency with the English language.
Gracias, David
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 4.0.
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 refined.
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 eliminate
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
variables.
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 + trial-and-error local
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 introduced in
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
JC specific
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-level,
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 to
19 matches
Mail list logo
