public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

             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).