From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 817 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2003 14:16:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 803 invoked by uid 71); 31 Mar 2003 14:16:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030331141601.802.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Eric Botcazou Subject: Re: target/6882: [SPARC] Useless stack adjustment code Reply-To: Eric Botcazou X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg02105.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/6882; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Eric Botcazou To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: dann@godzilla.ics.uci.edu, , , Subject: Re: target/6882: [SPARC] Useless stack adjustment code Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:07:38 +0200 > Now you're arguing about the *value of the optimization*. > I was arguing about *closing the PR for the wrong reason*. Well, you only asked me to give a specific reason for the adjustment code. I agreed that there appears to be no compelling reason for it. But the problem is that the code is emitted anyway. So IMHO the right question is rather: are there strong enough reasons for removing it? Therefore I gave my opinion on this latter question. > Having said that, let's continue to the *new* discussion. You > can't optimize out the call from other translation units. Not > being a SPARC maintainer I won't try to judge on the benefit, > but it looks simple enough and seems worthwhile. C++ tends to > generate a lot of small trivial functions. Maybe. My impression is that, if the optimization was that simple and that worthwhile, it would already have been implemented. But I'm not a SPARC maintainer either, so... -- Eric Botcazou