> (In fact, there's nothing inherent in even using the same algorithms on > all processors; I can well imagine that the best register allocation > algorithms for x86 and Itanium might be entirely different. I'm in no > way trying to encourage an entire set of per-achitecture optimization > passes; clearly the more we can keep common the better! But, our goal > is to produce a compiler that generates the best possible code on > multiple architectures, not to produce a compiler that uses the same > algorithms and optimization options on all architectures.) > > I have never heard RMS opine on this issue. However, I don't think that > this is something that the SC or FSF need to decide.
As far as I can recall, there's always been SOME hardware dependence on the exact meaning of -O2 since, in at least a few cases, which options were included in it depended on target options.
