From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Cc: kthomas@gwdg.de
Subject: Re: Optimizations 
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:14:00 -0000
Message-id: <25425.882159453@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <19971215000809.60319@cerebro.laendle>
X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg00816.html

  In message < 19971215000809.60319@cerebro.laendle >you write:
  > On Sun, Dec 14, 1997 at 02:34:36PM +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
  > > Marc Lehmann wrote:
  > > > -fschedule-insns is a *loss* on x86 cpu's!
  > > 
  > > care to explain why it is a loss (and most probably also -fschedule-insns
  > 2)
  > > ?
  > 
  > AFAIR -fschedule-insns (as opposed to -fschedule-insns2) is normally a loss
  > sicne the first scheduling pass is done before register allocation, so the
  > register pressure increases and local/global get's problems. (for fpu code
  > it _could_ be beneficial, though).
To be more correct it may be a loss for machines with a limited number of
registers (such as the x86).  On machines with a generous number of registers
-fschedule-insns is generally a win.

jeff