Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 21:53:24 +0200 To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Optimization question Message-ID: <19990510215324.D22062@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from David Whysong on Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:09:25AM -0700 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.7 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.09 19990221 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3) From: Marc Lehmann Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 09:09:25AM -0700, David Whysong wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 1999, Dr H. T. Leung wrote: > > >If you had read the mailing list archive, it is terribly unfair to people > >on the list to cc you replies when you are not on the list. If you want to > >ask a question, subscribe, read on for a while, then post (then maybe > >unsubscribe). > > That's EXTREMELY strange. Anyway I'm now subscribed to the list. Sorry... It would be strange, yes ;) Hello, btw! > Thanks, this is exactly what I wanted to know. Optimizing comiplers like > egcs/pgcc do "strength reduction", but I wasn't sure if this kind of strength reduction is only for loops, however, when your code is in a loop... A problem with strentgh reduction, however, is that it creates a lot more registers, which the x86 doens't have, so strentgh reduction might atcually hurt (though you need it for loop unrolling). > construct would be taken care of by the compiler, or if I need to do it by > hand. It should be automatic, but this is a very extreme case, so this might be worthwhile! -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |