Hi,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:38:39AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > everything was fine until this morning, now upon make-check in the v3
> > dir, during the final link for testsuite_shared.so, ld spills:
> >
> > relocation R_X86
BLUE 3TOO writes:
> Ian, thanks a lot for the help. Is there any document
> about IRA (e.g. how the SIMD registers of a
> specific architecture is exposed to the allocation
> process)? or the only option is the read the code?
Vlad described IRA in a paper published in the 2007 GCC Summit
proc
Ian, thanks a lot for the help. Is there any document
about IRA (e.g. how the SIMD registers of a
specific architecture is exposed to the allocation
process)? or the only option is the read the code?
what is the best information source for a beginner on gcc?
Thanks again.
-
BLUE 3TOO writes:
> Can anybody explain how the register allocation is handled in GCC?
> Is it done together with the general register allocation? or GCC
> has a separate phase to handle them separately?
There is no separate vector register allocator. All classes of
registers are al
Hello,
Can anybody explain how the register allocation is handled in GCC? Is it
done together with the general register allocation? or GCC has a separate phase
to handle them separately?
Any pointer to the source code that I can take a look? Thanks
Peng
On 06/25/2010 08:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I opened a bug:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44671
>
Thanks HJ. Luckily it's friday, but we have quite a bit of ongoing
activity in the library, I really hope that over the weekend the
offending commit is properly tweaked or otherwise r
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> everything was fine until this morning, now upon make-check in the v3
>> dir, during the final link for testsuite_shared.so, ld spills:
>>
>> relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against s
On 06/25/2010 11:09 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> The Solaris 8/x86 assembler handles the first form just fine, with
> output identical to gas 2.20.1.
Excellent.
r~
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> everything was fine until this morning, now upon make-check in the v3
> dir, during the final link for testsuite_shared.so, ld spills:
>
> relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against symbol
> `__gnu_cxx::__common_pool<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true>::_
Richard Henderson writes:
> Note that this *is* a memory context. The problematic cases were
>
> addl $...@gotoff, %eax
>
> which needed to be written as
>
> lea x...@gotoff(%eax), %eax
>
> to satisfy the memory context requirement of the broken assemblers.
The Solaris 8/x86 assembler handl
On 06/03/2010 05:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> ; Current assemblers are broken and do not allow @GOTOFF in
> ; ought but a memory context.
>
> Code, following this comment disables or special-cases
> "pic_symbolic_operands".
>
> I'm investigating, which "current assemblers"
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > I would be also very interested to know how profile feedback works in this
> > case
> > (and why it does not work in previous releases).
>
> Profiling multi-threading programs needs -fprofile-correction that appeared
> only in 4.4 (but I h
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:10:56AM -0700, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> When you compile with -Os, the inlining happens only when code size reduces.
> Thus we pretty much care about the code size metrics only. I suspect the
> problem here might be that normal C++ code needs some inlining to make
> abstract
Hi,
everything was fine until this morning, now upon make-check in the v3
dir, during the final link for testsuite_shared.so, ld spills:
relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against symbol
`__gnu_cxx::__common_pool<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true>::_S_get_pool()' can
not be used when making a shared object; recompil
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> I would be also very interested to know how profile feedback works in this
> case
> (and why it does not work in previous releases).
Profiling multi-threading programs needs -fprofile-correction that appeared
only in 4.4 (but I have no idea whether
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> I do think so.
>>
>> Huh? What do your version and mine return for the following assignment?
>>
>> void foo (int i)
>> {
>> struct S s;
>> s.a = i;
>> }
>>
>>> Which in the fol
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:50:52AM -0700, Taras Glek wrote:
> Just wanted to give a heads up on what might be the biggest
> compiler-upgrade-related performance difference we've seen at Mozilla.
>
> We switched gcc4.3 for gcc4.5 and our automated benchmarking
> infrastructure reported 4-19% sl
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Adamczewski
> wrote:
> > On 25/06/10 06:39, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> There are btw. some bugs wrt accounting of functions called once
> >> being inlined in 4.5 which were fixed on trunk which allow extra
> >> inlining.
> >>
> >
> > Are these changes
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I do think so.
>
> Huh? What do your version and mine return for the following assignment?
>
> void foo (int i)
> {
> struct S s;
> s.a = i;
> }
>
>> Which in the following example makes i = *p not likely eliminated
>> but makes j = *q l
> I do think so.
Huh? What do your version and mine return for the following assignment?
void foo (int i)
{
struct S s;
s.a = i;
}
> Which in the following example makes i = *p not likely eliminated
> but makes j = *q likely eliminated.
>
> void foo (int *p, struct X *q)
> {
> int i;
>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Adamczewski
wrote:
> On 25/06/10 06:39, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> There are btw. some bugs wrt accounting of functions called once
>> being inlined in 4.5 which were fixed on trunk which allow extra
>> inlining.
>>
>
> Are these changes likely to make it
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Minus whitespace changes it seems to be
>>
>> ! if (lhs_free && (is_gimple_reg (rhs) ||
>> is_gimple_min_invariant (rhs)))
>> rhs_free = true;
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> ! if (lhs_free
>> ! && (is_gimple_
22 matches
Mail list logo
