From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29623 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2003 19:36:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29616 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2003 19:36:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.goquest.com) (12.18.108.6) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 19:36:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 3046 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jan 2003 19:35:48 -0000 Received: from mszick@goquest.com by mail.goquest.com by uid 502 with qmail-scanner-1.12 (spamassassin: 2.31. . Clear:. Processed in 0.676758 secs); 05 Jan 2003 19:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.90.217.77) by mail.goquest.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2003 19:35:47 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Michael S. Zick To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar), dewar@gnat.com, lord@emf.net, mszick@goquest.com Subject: Re: Sythetic registers: modrm/gas question. Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 20:15:00 -0000 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, ja_walker@earthlink.net References: <20030105175908.E9176F2DDB@nile.gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20030105175908.E9176F2DDB@nile.gnat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <03010513311000.00808@localhost.localdomain> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00229.txt.bz2 On Sunday 05 January 2003 11:59 am, Robert Dewar wrote: > > I have to strongly disagree with that observation. > > I am talking very specifically here of the issue of taking register > renaming into account in register allocation and scheduling algorithms. > I certainly would be interested in any references you know of in this > area. My error, I mis-read the statement. My mind was somewhere else while my hands were typing. This entire thread has spured me to dig out my project notes from a globally optimizing, meta-assembler done about 23 years ago. I am doing a re-write of the principles and concepts with GCC in mind. I'll let the list know when I have the draft finished. If GCC really isn't doing better than a W.A.F.G. in this area, perhaps it will help. Mike