On 27/04/12 11:49, Richard Guenther wrote:
Yes, it inlines it. You may want to look at s390 which I believe has
a similar block-copy operation.
Richard.
I looked at s390 and even though the block copy instruction seems
similar ours is much more restrictive since it expects values in
speci
On 27/04/12 11:49, Richard Guenther wrote:
It feels to me that GCC46 version is better:
* no branch to subroutine memcpy;
* less stack usage (argument to enterl);
So, using our block copy (bc2) instruction is an optimisation, don't you
think?
Yes, it inlines it. You may want to look at s390 w
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 27/04/12 09:21, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This differs from what GCC47 does and seems to work better.
>>> I would like help on how to best handle this situation under GCC47.
>>
>>
>> Not provide movmem which looks like open-cod
On 27/04/12 09:21, Richard Guenther wrote:
This differs from what GCC47 does and seems to work better.
I would like help on how to best handle this situation under GCC47.
Not provide movmem which looks like open-coded and not in any way
"optimized"?
Thanks Richard, however I don't understan
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am facing a problem with the GCC47 register allocation and my movmemqi.
> GCC46 dealt very well with the problem but GCC47 keeps throwing at me
> register spill failures.
>
> My backend has very few registers. 3 chip registers in t
