"Brian O'Mahoney" writes:
>
> Last, a word to the wise, compiler developers, are by nature fairly agressive
> but, unless you want to work on gcc itself, it is wise to stay a bit behind
> the bleeding edge, and, unless your systems are excellently backed up,
> ___DONT_BUILD_THE_KERNEL___ with an
Hello Everyone,
I am currently working on the OpenRISC port of GCC. There isn't much
significant backend optimization implemented, its just a straightforward
port.
Now, is it possible for the code to move between Basic blocks (or
even inside the basic blocks) after machine dependent reorg
I forgot to mention one important part..I am using GCC 4.0.2
Hello Everyone,
I am currently working on the OpenRISC port of GCC. There isn't much
significant backend optimization implemented, its just a straightforward
port.
Now, is it possible for the code to move between Basic blocks
Hi
A simple example (see below) seems to reveal that GCC considers the
unoptimized size of a function rather that the optimized one, when
deciding whether it is small enough to be inlined. In fact, it shows
that GCC does consider the optimized size, but optimized based only on
its body, not the co
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Kristian Spangsege
wrote:
> Hi
>
> A simple example (see below) seems to reveal that GCC considers the
> unoptimized size of a function rather that the optimized one, when
> deciding whether it is small enough to be inlined. In fact, it shows
> that GCC does consid
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Balaji V. Iyer wrote:
> I forgot to mention one important part..I am using GCC 4.0.2
The first thing you should to is update to current gcc (preferably svn trunk).
4.0.2 is really old and hasn't been maintained for quite some time. There's
a good chance things have
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:07 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> Currently, gcc doesn't support a multilib build for win64. I have
>> been looking at how to do this, and have so far come up with a
>> beginning to a solution. The work done thus far is
"Balaji V. Iyer" writes:
> I printed out the RTL dump using the following code during the machine
> dependent reorganization
>
>
> FOR_EACH_BB(bb) {
> for (insn = bb_head(bb); insn != bb_end(bb); insn = NEXT_INSN(insn))
> {
>if (INSN_P(insn))
> print_rtl_single(insn);
>
Ian,
Thanks for your help. What I mainly want to do is to make some
hardware decisions by looking at the instructions inside a Basic block.
Ths is why I was using the "FOR_EACH_BB" function.
When and where can I intercept the RTL such that I can get the
RTL that matches the output
"Balaji V. Iyer" writes:
> Thanks for your help. What I mainly want to do is to make some
> hardware decisions by looking at the instructions inside a Basic block.
> Ths is why I was using the "FOR_EACH_BB" function.
>
> When and where can I intercept the RTL such that I can get the
>
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Balaji V. Iyer" writes:
>
>> Thanks for your help. What I mainly want to do is to make some
>> hardware decisions by looking at the instructions inside a Basic block.
>> Ths is why I was using the "FOR_EACH_BB" function.
>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Mitchell [mailto:m...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 11:51 AM
> To: Andrew Haley
> Cc: Eric Botcazou; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Georg-Johann Lay
> Subject: Re: Odd performance regression with -Os
>
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Eric Botcazou wrot
12 matches
Mail list logo
