From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5383 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2012 20:12:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 5346 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Oct 2012 20:12:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:12:24 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id h5so5426971lam.20 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.103.135 with SMTP id fw7mr7098425lbb.16.1350504742893; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:12:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.88.99 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:12:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <507F0CCD.3080606@redhat.com> References: <5064DA43.90803@redhat.com> <87sj9fd6jf.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <507F0CCD.3080606@redhat.com> From: Steven Bosscher Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: LRA for x86/x86-64 [7/9] -- continuation To: Vladimir Makarov Cc: GCC Patches , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg01669.txt.bz2 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