From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29571 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2004 12:00:36 -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 29552 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 12:00:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.kloo.net) (63.192.214.25) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 12:00:35 -0000 Received: by mail.kloo.net (Postfix, from userid 504) id 9332C3B0228; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 04:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kloo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBED3B44AF; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 04:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:00:00 -0000 From: To: Dale Johannesen Cc: law@redhat.com, "Rakesh Kumar, Noida" , Giovanni Bajo , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: stack height reduction in tree-SSA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Sep 1, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > We've discussed various means of trying to tackle the problem of > > sharing stack slots to mitigate the stack space problems. If > > someone is interested in tackling this problem, I'd suggest > > they ping Richard Henderson who seemed to have the best handle > > on a potential solution when we last discussed it as a group > > a few months ago. > > One thing to bear in mind is that it is *not* always beneficial to > reduce > stack space as much as possible, because this inhibits scheduling. Some CISCy targets don't have scheduling enabled, so on these targets it's always beneficial. Toshi