https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90174
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina <tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #11) > (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #10) > > Hi Vlad, > > > > Just curious if you had a chance to think about an approach to this that > > would be acceptable. > > Sorry for not working on this issue more although I thought about the > problem for some time w/o finding any possible small code changes could > solve the problem. > Ah, hmm that's too bad but thanks for looking into it! > I just expressed my point of view to the bottom-up approach. If somebody > implements any new RA approach which at least does not hurt credible > benchmarks (e.g. SPEC) and improve some benchmarks and does not complicate > existing RA too much, nobody will have legitimate arguments not to include > the new code into GCC. > > I think that may be for some cases bottom-up approach could work better. > Probably this is code for number crunching (with a lot of loop iterations). > For some cases top-down approach works better for loops with smaller number > iterations (e.g. most loops in GCC itself). > I don't know much about the current RA implementation, but would it be possible you think to have this be heuristics driven? or do you think it would be too expensive to try multiple strategies and keep the one that works best?
