From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30599 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 11:30:50 -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 30573 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 11:30:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lon-mail-2.gradwell.net) (193.111.201.126) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 11:30:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 32527 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 11:30:45 -0000 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (postmaster%pop3.polyomino.org.uk@81.187.227.50) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 11:30:45 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AiB8e-0005ll-VZ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:30:44 +0000 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:30:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Ian Lance Taylor cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Can we speed up the gcc_target structure? In-Reply-To: <20040118083738.10772.qmail@gossamer.airs.com> Message-ID: References: <20040118083738.10772.qmail@gossamer.airs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01164.txt.bz2 On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Somebody must have noticed this before, but I couldn't find anything > in the gcc mailing list. I queried the performance cost when Zack proposed moving the macros for type sizes to the target structure , but without any benchmark figures. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm@polyomino.org.uk