public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3/4.4 Regression]  Revision 126326 causes 12% slowdown
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 14:16:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080502141603.12917.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-32921-682@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #52 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-02 14:16 -------
Yes, the "perfect pass" problem is what concerns me too.  For example, if we
try to do dynamic reordering of passes, or allow users to specify that, we have
to worry that, in practice, the compiler will crash or generate wrong code. 
We'll have no good way of ever validating even a small set of the possible
combinations.

Perhaps we need to make the passes fast, so we can run them more often?  Or
weave some of them together, even though of course it's nice if each pass is
logically separate and does a single thing?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32921


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-05-02 14:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-28  0:23 [Bug tree-optimization/32921] New: [4.3 " hjl at lucon dot org
2007-07-28  0:32 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-28  0:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-28  0:51 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-07-28  1:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-28 10:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-28 20:51 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-07-28 20:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2007-07-28 23:25 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-09-11 11:48 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-07 15:17 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-10-07 15:17 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-10-07 15:19 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-10-10 17:48 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-17 16:14 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-17 16:19 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-17 16:59 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-17 17:41 ` dberlin at dberlin dot org
2007-10-17 21:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-18 11:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-18 20:55 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-10-19 11:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-19 12:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-19 12:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-19 15:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-19 16:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-19 22:13 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-10-20  4:21 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-10-20  9:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-20 16:05 ` hjl at lucon dot org
2007-10-22 21:11 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-23  2:23 ` Joey dot ye at intel dot com
2007-10-23 20:29 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-23 20:31 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-24 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-24 15:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-24 15:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-24 15:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-24 23:15 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-25  8:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-25 10:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-25 11:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-25 11:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-14 16:53 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3/4.4 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-23 14:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-23 14:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 18:50 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 20:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 21:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-30 22:36 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-01 19:27 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-02 10:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-02 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-02 12:33 ` dnovillo at google dot com
2008-05-02 12:56 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2008-05-02 14:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2008-05-02 15:06 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2008-06-06 14:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-27 22:04 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-08 15:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-24 10:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-31 14:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3 " bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-01-31 14:36 ` [Bug tree-optimization/32921] [4.3/4.4 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-02 19:17 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080502141603.12917.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).