From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11834 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 20:17:28 -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 11826 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 20:17:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO yosemite.airs.com) (209.128.65.135) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 20:17:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 5165 invoked by uid 10); 18 Jan 2004 20:17:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 22070 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2004 20:17:20 -0000 From: Ian Lance Taylor To: Richard Henderson Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Can we speed up the gcc_target structure? References: <20040118083738.10772.qmail@gossamer.airs.com> <200401181357.i0IDvpWF004706@caip.rutgers.edu> <20040118201004.GA14248@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040118201004.GA14248@redhat.com> Message-ID: 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: 2004-01/txt/msg01189.txt.bz2 Richard Henderson writes: > I think perhaps we might be willing to move *some* things back to > Where they can be seen to be compile-time constants. However, > anything we move back had better be constant. I think one issue is that there are things which are compile-time constants for some platforms but not for others. Those are the types of things found in targetm.calls, for example. Or, e.g., BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN, although that is not (yet) in the target vector. > I do not want anyone to be tempted to do sneak more and more complex > macros back into header files in the name of optimization. I certainly agree with that. Ian