On Wednesday 12 October 2005 10:23, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> The GV heuristic is actually wrong in a lot of cases, in part because we
>
Wrong? Meaning that it causes us to generate bad code? Or did you mean
pessimistic? I can believe the latter.
> LLVM actually does something like this to make
> Yes, that is true. However, I am looking for graceful degradation
> mechanisms, while trying to keep SSA semantics. I would like to be able
> to trigger grouping mechanisms both in call-clobbering and aliasing
> without just Giving Up Hard. To add insult to injury, we give up too late
> (
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 09:55, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> a is static.
>
D'oh, sorry. I missed this bit.
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 09:51 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2005 22:16, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:44 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 11 October 2005 20:30, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > > BTW, you are also screwing up the upwards fud-chains in c
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 22:16, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:44 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 October 2005 20:30, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > BTW, you are also screwing up the upwards fud-chains in cases where
> > > it really does clobber A, since you'll get the
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 20:44 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2005 20:30, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > BTW, you are also screwing up the upwards fud-chains in cases where it
> > really does clobber A, since you'll get the exact same as above, and
> > thus, A_1 won't be linked to th
