From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89410-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29056 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 20:02:01 -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 29034 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 20:02:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com) (66.187.237.200)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 20:02:00 -0000
Received: from frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0JK20OG020625;
	Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:02:00 -0800
Received: (from rth@localhost)
	by frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0JK207X020623;
	Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:02:00 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:02:00 -0000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, ian@wasabisystems.com,
   gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Can we speed up the gcc_target structure?
Message-ID: <20040119200200.GB20347@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
	Richard Guenther <rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>,
	Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, ian@wasabisystems.com,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org
References: <10401191153.AA27414@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0401191257460.14384@bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0401191257460.14384@bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01365.txt.bz2

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:01:54PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> A better way would be to handle those target functions that can be const
> with a hybrid approach like
> 
> #define TARGET_FUNCTION_FOO_CONST_VALUE false
> 
> static inline bool target_function_foo(...)
> {
> #ifdef TARGET_FUNCTION_FOO_CONST_VALUE
>    return TARGET_FUNCTION_FOO_CONST_VALUE;
> #else
>    return vec->target_function_foo(...);
> #endif
> }

If we were going to do something like this, we shouldn't bother
with the vector, we should just make the calls direct.  There's
a not insignificant cost to indirect vs direct calls.


r~