From: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>
To: gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Compiler Analysis: 3.3, 3.4, or tree-ssa?
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F8D50D5.1020401@coyotegulch.com> (raw)
A couple months ago, I gave a preliminary report on my project to
analyze the effectiveness of gcc optimizations via an evolutionary
algorithm. At that time, the responses I received lead me to spend time
reworking my research code into soemthing a bit more formal and modular.
Where the original framework was gcc and Intel specific, the current
program is both compiler and platform independent.
Now that I'm ready to publish Acovea (Analysis of Compiler Options Via
Evolutionary Algorithm), I'm wondering which version of gcc I should
analyze.
3.3.x is the current release; analyzing it would provide a baseline, but
any discoveries are unlikely to have much impact on 3.3's development at
this point.
3.4 is in active development, and is the subject of my current tests.
I've discovered a number of anomalies and an ICE; I'll report the
results here as soon the the entire test set is complete.
Should I also analyze tree-ssa, aka 3.5? Is there value in comparing
results from 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5?
Considered opinions will be appreciated.
..Scott
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing
next reply other threads:[~2003-10-15 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-10-15 16:26 Scott Robert Ladd [this message]
2003-10-15 18:09 ` Andreas Jaeger
2003-10-15 19:34 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-10-16 15:58 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2003-10-16 16:20 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-10-18 14:12 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2003-10-16 18:04 ` Joe Buck
2003-10-17 11:48 ` Falk Hueffner
2003-10-17 12:52 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-10-17 18:48 Matthew Fago
2003-10-18 11:17 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-10-18 12:10 ` Matt Fago
2003-10-18 16:16 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-10-21 0:04 ` tm_gccmail
2003-10-21 6:47 ` Scott Robert Ladd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3F8D50D5.1020401@coyotegulch.com \
--to=coyote@coyotegulch.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).