[M3devel] [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[Jay K]

I have very mixed feelings about the optimizer.
1) I'm not certain it is worth the time it takes to run.
2) Fixing our trees isn't necessarily trivial.
The most expedient thing is neither to fix the trees, nor remove the optimizer code, but merely
to set the optimizer to be off in parse.c.
3) gcc is huge, I'd kind of like to see if I can get actually building it can be made much faster/smaller
4) Probably what really got me started here is the gmp/mpfr/mpc dependency.
5) The "best" thing isn't necessarily to use gcc at all.
6) I'll maybe move up to 4.7 soon.
6b) and maybe not spend so much time on it? Maybe just ln -s in gmp/mpfr/mpc and port only the needed changes?
Maybe even not using g++ but the hybrid gcc/g++ I use for gcc-apple (4.2)
7) Do folks out there really use the Modula-3/gcc optimizer, and notice it produces code that runs much faster?


 - Jay


________________________________
> From: dragisha at m3w.org 
> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:57:40 +0200 
> To: jkrell at elego.de 
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com 
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3 
>  
> Jay, 
>  
> What benefit from 4.6 backend do we expect for cm3 if most of optimizer  
> is "optimized out" of cm3cg? 
>  
> If our "trees" are reason why you must switch optimizations off, is it  
> not more logical to fix our "trees"? One by one, if need be. A look  
> into gm2 (for example), a fix in our backend. That way, future porting  
> to most recent gcc's will be much easier? 
>  
> TIA, 
> dd 
>  
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Jay Krell wrote: 
>  
> Log message: 
> remove more of the optimizer 
>