From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-73985-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31604 invoked by alias); 12 May 2003 16:20:27 -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 31545 invoked from network); 12 May 2003 16:20:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 May 2003 16:20:26 -0000
Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [213.95.15.136])
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3474014F76; Mon, 12 May 2003 18:20:26 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:20:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: law@redhat.com
Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, <jh@suse.cz>,
	<gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: An issue for the SC: horrible documentation quality of GCC 
In-Reply-To: <200305121604.h4CG4OLI014737@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305121819390.15564-100000@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01157.txt.bz2

Hi,

On Mon, 12 May 2003 law@redhat.com wrote:

> For this and other reasons I've come to the conclusion that we need to
> separate our optimizations into generic and target dependent optimizations.
> And that conceptually the generic optimizations should strive to eliminate
> as much redundancy as possible, fully propagate constants/copies, etc and
> leave it to the expanders and target dependent optimizers to "undo"
> unprofitable redundancy elimination, cprop, etc.

Amen.


Ciao,
Michael.