From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7452 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 23:48:25 -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 7441 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 23:48:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 23:48:24 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA03585; Mon, 19 Jan 04 18:50:38 EST Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:48:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10401192350.AA03585@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: zack@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: Can we speed up the gcc_target structure? Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01414.txt.bz2 I'm speculating that a simpler specification of classes could be informed by the needs of the new register allocator. That's all. I don't see it. The complexity of register class specifications is dictated by the complexity of architectures, not anything we put into GCC: it has to be expressive enough to describe all architectures. Sure, it's somewhat redundant, in that we have maps both ways, and a few macros could be eliminated in that process, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to me.