From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-65671-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20489 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 18:11:34 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20480 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 18:11:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 18:11:33 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 083A2F2A5C; Sat,  4 Jan 2003 13:11:22 -0500 (EST)
To: denisc@overta.ru, dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: An unusual Performance approach using Synthetic registers
Cc: dnovillo@acm.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, ja_walker@earthlink.net,
	sabre@nondot.org, zack@codesourcery.com
Message-Id: <20030104181122.083A2F2A5C@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:12:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2

> It's indicate that register allocator is operating very poorly or just
> dumb.

Exactly, since the implementation of "synthetic registers" is quite naive,
and the register allocator should be able to do at least this well.