From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13311 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2003 17:59:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13297 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2003 17:59:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO overta.ru) (217.23.68.3) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 17:59:44 -0000 Received: from [217.23.69.119] (HELO localhost.localdomain) by overta.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0) with ESMTP id 4585428; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 20:59:31 +0300 To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Cc: ja_walker@earthlink.net, zack@codesourcery.com, dnovillo@acm.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, sabre@nondot.org Subject: Re: An unusual Performance approach using Synthetic registers References: <20030104144949.982B0F2D8C@nile.gnat.com> From: Denis Chertykov Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030104144949.982B0F2D8C@nile.gnat.com> Message-ID: <65t4x0d6.fsf@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: > > What I think Diego is trying to say is, creating synthetic registers > > for the x86 isn't going to help much, possibly not at all, because the > > optimizer passes that could benefit already have unlimited registers > > to work with. > > I would put it a different way. If "synthetic registers" help, it would > just indicate that the optimizer and code generator is operating very > poorly. It's indicate that register allocator is operating very poorly or just dumb. Denis.