https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #34 from Evandro <e.menezes at samsung dot com> --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #33) > (In reply to Evandro from comment #32) > ADRP latency to load-address should be zero on any OoO core - ADRP is > basically a move-immediate, so can execute early and hide any latency. In an ideal world, yes. In the actual world, they compete for limited resources that could be used by other insns. > > Which brings another point, shouldn't there be just one ADRP per BB or, > > ideally, per function? Or am I missing something? > > That's not possible in this case as the section is mergeable. An alternative > implementation using anchors may be feasible, but GCC is extremely bad at > using anchors efficiently - functions using several global variables also > end up with a large number of ADRPs when you'd expect a single ADRP. I see. I'll investigate placing the constant after the function, as before, if the estimated function size allows for it. I think that eliminating the ADRPs could potentially be more beneficial to code size than merging constants in a common literal pool (v. http://bit.ly/1Ptc8nh). Thank you.
