search for: rematerialisations

...braun09cc.pdf As the author of this paper I have to defend it now (of course ;-) > > Don't trust it. The abstract clearly states they're counting the number of > dynamic spills. That has almost nothing to do with performance. So if not the number of dynamic spills/reloads and rematerialisations. What else can you do to measure the quality of your spilling algorithm? I admit that the impressive numbers in spill translate to smaller gains in the range of 1-5% also it's hard to compare 2 different compilers. Nonetheless we produce faster x86 code than llvm-2.3 for several spec benchmarks...

Hi I just stumbled upon this paper. While i just skimmed over it it seems as if the authors say that their algorithm is more efficient than the llvm 2.3 algorithm? So i thought that might be interesting? http://pp.info.uni-karlsruhe.de/uploads/publikationen/braun09cc.pdf Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the authors and stumbled in a slightly unrelated search over this paper. ST

On Thursday 14 January 2010 15:56, ST wrote: > Hi > > I just stumbled upon this paper. While i just skimmed over it it seems as > if the authors say that their algorithm is more efficient than the llvm 2.3 > algorithm? So i thought that might be interesting? > > http://pp.info.uni-karlsruhe.de/uploads/publikationen/braun09cc.pdf Don't trust it. The abstract clearly

Greetings, LLVM devs, For the past few weeks, I have been putting together a 6502 backend for LLVM. The 6502 and its derivatives, of course, have powered countless microcomputers, game consoles and arcade machines over the past 40 years. The backend is just an experimental hobby project right now. The code is available here: <https://github.com/beholdnec/llvm-m6502>. This branch introduces