From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89769-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26950 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2004 06:27:28 -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 26831 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2004 06:27:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mtagate5.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.154)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jan 2004 06:27:26 -0000
Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196])
	by mtagate5.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M6RBe2109136;
	Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:27:11 GMT
Received: from d12ml045.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228])
	by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i0M6RABe267288;
	Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:27:10 +0100
Received: from [9.152.222.71] ([9.152.222.71])
          by d12ml045.de.ibm.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.9a)
          with ESMTP id 2004012207265885:112 ;
          Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:26:58 +0100 
In-Reply-To: <200401211157.i0LBveM04894@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <200401211157.i0LBveM04894@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609)
Message-Id: <A120D8FC-4C7B-11D8-90BE-000A95A4DC02@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>,
        Nick Burrett <nick@dsvr.net>,
        Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>,
        Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@apple.com>,
        Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>,
        Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>,
        Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr>,
        Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal 
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:37:00 -0000
To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01726.txt.bz2

> But on the other hand, caches were smaller, not backed by L2, and were
> often allocate-on-write only (so zeroing a structure can be very

Did you mean to say allocate-on-read, or am I just confused beyond 
words?

> expensive, especially if it is then re-initialized with other data).  
> All
> of these affect general approaches to what needs optimizing.

Amen.


Segher