On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
On 2012-04-29, at 10:52 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that while this test gives a good study of gcc's default behavior, a broader study would be needed to see which optimizations are applied to Gambit-generated code, how long they take at compile time, and how much they benefit execution speed.
Are you suggesting this should be done for every version of gcc?
I'm not suggesting anything, except not to draw too broad conclusions from this broad study.
It is hard enough to do for a single version, and the effort will mostly have to be redone for the next release.
I've found that '-fschedule-insns' and '-frename-registers' help in x86_64 and powerpc code (not in i386 code, which doesn't have enough registers). It would be hard, without actually adding the code to gcc itself to implement -Wdisabled-optimization at all the right spots, to see what optimizations are actually performed, say, on _io.c with -O2.
If I were a gcc developer I might be motivated to do this,
I'm sorry, I've lost the thread here, what is "this"?
Would you or someone else be interested in doing this?
Adding the warnings in all the right places is on my "bucket list". (It's such a boring list, really.)
Brad