There were many good ideas and suggestions in the email thread.
Speeding up GCC performance with community effort is the ultimate path
for Itanium. HP is committed to work with the GCC community to make
this happen. I also agree with the observation that we need an
intermediate path to beef u
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Or let's put it this way: Would AdaCore have the resources to
support two entirely different backends. Would it even want to
hire new engineers or let its existing work-force learn compiler
internals of another compiler to support just one target? I don't
think so.
T
I agree with Vladimir wholeheartedly. After working on OpenIMPACT for
years, I reached the conclusion that the ONLY way to make a real difference
for Linux Itanium users is to help improve the mainstream GCC compiler.
That is why my team (esp. Bob Kidd) is actively helping with a strong
superbloc
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:53, Robert Dewar wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
(If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties,
because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distributors
switching to a compiler different from F
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:05:39AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:53, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > > (If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties,
> > > because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distri
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:53, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > (If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties,
> > because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distributors
> > switching to a compiler different from FSF GCC for Itanium.)
>
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
(If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties,
because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distributors
switching to a compiler different from FSF GCC for Itanium.)
Surely this depends on relative performance ...
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that the new backend is not planned to be
> included in FSF GCC?
That seems unlikely, in the medium-term, at least. Some people have
rasied legal issues, which I know nothing about, but the code has not
been assigned to the FSF. But, those are
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> In summary, I think that splitting GCC optimization efforts between FSF
> and ORC back-ends is unfortunate. I would far rather that the free
> software community be united behind a single optimizer. But,
> fundamentally, I don't see much that we can do
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> The ORC backend optimizations proven to work for Itanium could be
> rewritten for RTL with usage of existing gcc infrastructure, added to
> gcc and could be used for other ports. I think it is more right way to do.
I strongly agree, except that I would generalize "RT
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:47:43AM -0400, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> - If you want to see the hybrid compiler as a part of gcc project, how
> are you going to solve the copyright problem? As I know, although ORC
> code is also distributed under GNU license, the copyright belongs to
> SGI. A
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although many of us are involved, or have been involved, with other
compiler projects, the focus of the Gelato GCC Improvement Group is to
work *with* the GCC community *and* the GCC community *process* to
improve GCC for Itanium.
Some of the other projects which indi
GCC community,
As some of you may know, a group met this past January in Geneva
to
discuss ways of improving GCC performance for Itanium. The group
identified three optimizations that should help significantly:
- Rotating Registers (including Swing Modulo Scheduling)
- Superblock Scheduling
13 matches
Mail list logo
