On 08/15/14 04:07, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Sebastian Pop <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steve Ellcey wrote:
I understand the desire not to add optimizations just for benchmarks but
we do know other compilers have added this optimization for coremark
(See
http://community.arm.com/groups/embedded/blog/2013/02/21/coremark-and-compiler-performance)
and the 13 people on the CC list for this bug certainly shows interest in
having it even if it is just for a benchmark. Does 'competing against other
compilers' sound better then 'optimizing for a benchmark'?
I definitely would like to see GCC trunk do this transform. What about we
integrate the new pass, and then when jump-threading manages to catch the
coremark loop, we remove the pass?
It never worked that way.
A new pass takes compile-time, if we disable it by default it won't help
coremark (and it will bitrot quickly).
So - please fix DOM instead.
Steve's work is highly likely to be faster than further extending the
threading code -- that's one of the primary reasons I suggested Steve
resurrect his work.
Jeff
