From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18708 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2002 20:50:53 -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 18690 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2002 20:50:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO potter.sfbay.redhat.com) (205.180.83.107) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2002 20:50:50 -0000 Received: from dot.sfbay.redhat.com (dot.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.7]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3LKoLv12383; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:50:21 -0700 Received: (from rth@localhost) by dot.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3LKome31528; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:50:48 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: dot.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:16:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Peter Schmid , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , jason@redhat.com Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Prerelease Message-ID: <20020421135047.A31524@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Mark Mitchell , Peter Schmid , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , jason@redhat.com References: <3340000.1019348655@gandalf.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3340000.1019348655@gandalf.codesourcery.com>; from mark@codesourcery.com on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:24:15PM -0700 X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01055.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:24:15PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > It sounds like maybe if the front end were to promise that there > were no gotos in a particular function, this would improve things, > but I'm not sure. Less severe than that. No gotos within a specific region. Or more to the point, binding cleanup code with exception regions before generating rtl for them rather than after. > Jason, Richard, what do you think about this? The only practical > option, beyond the speedups Richard already implemented, is to > revert Jason's correctness patch at this point. I really dislike the idea of reverting the correctness patch. The most practical solution for people actually using these sorts of template packages is to not nest the expressions quite so deeply. I.e. use c = a + b; e = c * d; g = e + f; instead of g = (a + b) * d + f; or whatever. r~