From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Buck To: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rth@cygnus.com (Richard Henderson), dje@watson.ibm.com (David Edelsohn), jason@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) Subject: Re: Stepanov, PowerPC, life_analysis Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:40:00 -0000 Message-id: <200106091840.LAA07819@racerx.synopsys.com> References: <20010608180029R.mitchell@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00444.html > [ blow away some register copies before removing ADDRESSOF ] > In any case, I'm looking for input as to people think that: > > - This is the right idea, and if so, whether the details are > right. Internals experts like Richard will have to tell us whether it's safe and the details are right. Conceptually, it seems OK, but that might just reflect my ignorance. > - Whether or not we need to fix this for GCC 3.0. By our original release criteria, it fixes an important performance regression, so it would have been required for the release. We've relaxed requirements on that, but this kind of poor Stepanov performance is likely to mean poor C++ performance across the board, so I'd like to see it go in unless the gurus consider it unsafe. Of course, I'm assuming no regressions on primary release platforms.