[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/23/07 14:37: > Currently, the -On flags set/unset 60 flags, which yields 2^60 conbinations. > If you also kind the passes not controlled by a flag, but decided upon > depending on the optimization level, that adds another, virtual flag > (i.e. using -O1, -O2, -O3 or -Os as base setting).
No, that's not what I want. I want a static recipe. I do *not* want -Ox to do this search every time. It goes like this: Somebody does a study over a set of applications that represent certain usage patterns (say, FP and INT just to mention the two more common classes of apps). The slow search is done offline and after a few months, we get the results in the form of a table that says for each class and for each -Ox what set of passes to execute and in what order they should be executed. Not to say that the current sequencing and repetition are worthless, but I think they could be improved in a quasi systematic way using this process (which is slow and painful, I know). > My work is actually concentrating on building a framework to do > exactly that: give a set of recipes for -On flags which allow a > choice, and which are determined by trading off compilation time, > execution time and code size. Right. This is what I want. > I won't be at the GCC summit in Canada (I'm in San Diego then > presenting some other work), but I'll make sure to announce our work > when it's finished... Excellent. Looking forward to those results.
