search for: 6d0bca0f

...+0xe4)[0x42015704] lli(dlopen+0x41)[0x82db311] Abort (core dumped) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: a.out.bc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1092 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040426/6d0bca0f/attachment.obj>

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Finn S Andersen wrote: > For some of the benchmarks the linear scan regalloc > works. When it does, results are in the x1.0 - 1.5 > range. Unfortunately, the linear scan allocator breaks > on most of my code. Is there a chance you can try cvs? I would be interested to get a simplified test case where the allocator breaks. A lot of

Hi, I have a question about x86 code quality. I have run a few benchmarks and compared the running time of executables created by LLVM to executables created by gcc. It appears that code generated by LLVM is x1.5 - x3 times slower than code generated by gcc, for the x86 For some of the benchmarks the linear scan regalloc works. When it does, results are in the x1.0 - 1.5 range. Unfortunately,