[M3devel] [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[Jay K]

> > What benefit from 4.6 backend do we expect for cm3 if most of optimizer

ps: just the general goodness of staying current.
Even if a hacked up current.
4.7.0 is out already..

 - Jay


----------------------------------------
> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> To: dragisha at m3w.org; jkrell at elego.de
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: RE: [M3devel] [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:10:06 +0000
>
>
> 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
> >
>