Re: RFC: Idea for code size reduction

2009-01-23 Thread Philipp Marek
Hello everybody, On Friday 07 March 2008 Philipp Marek wrote: > Here you are. > > > code_overlap.pl - disassembles a binary, and outputs a list > (address, name, instruction, bytes) to STDOUT. > > bytes_saved.pl - takes such a list, and tries to estimate > the amount of bytes that could be sav

gcc-4.4-20090123 is now available

2009-01-23 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20090123 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20090123/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

IRA vs. frame pointer elimination [PR38952]

2009-01-23 Thread Dave Korn
Hi all, re: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38952 [Regression/4.4,P1 blocker IMHO: total failure of SjLj EH on Cygwin+MinGW] I have a simple testcase showing breakage in SjLj EH on Cygwin. To cut right to the chase, the RTL generated by the 130r.eh pass to save %ebp (the frame

Re: IRA vs. frame pointer elimination [PR38952]

2009-01-23 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >Hi all, > > re: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38952 > [Regression/4.4,P1 blocker IMHO: total failure of SjLj EH on Cygwin+MinGW] > > I have a simple testcase showing breakage in SjLj EH on Cygwin. To cut > right to the chase, t

Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-01-06)

2009-01-23 Thread Dave Korn
Richard Guenther wrote: > Status > == > > The trunk remains Stage 4, so only fixes for regressions (and changes > to documentation) are allowed. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think I should draw your attention to PR38952 (SjLj EH dead) which is a serious (I think justifiably P1)

Re: IRA vs. frame pointer elimination [PR38952]

2009-01-23 Thread Dave Korn
H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >>Hi all, >> >> re: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38952 >> [Regression/4.4,P1 blocker IMHO: total failure of SjLj EH on Cygwin+MinGW] >> >> I have a simple testcase showing breakage in SjLj EH on Cygwin. To cut >

GCC RES: Restrictive Exception Specification: 0.1 - Alpha. Feedback Request.

2009-01-23 Thread Simon Hill
I recently (on 18/12/2008) mailed a GCC patch to this mailing list, but I went on holiday after and have only just arrived back. I probably should have asked for some feedback then. The patch is for the C++ component of GCC. It adds some compiler warning options. The primary usage of these options

Re: IRA vs. frame pointer elimination [PR38952]

2009-01-23 Thread Dave Korn
Dave Korn wrote: > H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >>>Hi all, >>> >>> re: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38952 >>> [Regression/4.4,P1 blocker IMHO: total failure of SjLj EH on Cygwin+MinGW] >>> >>> I have a simple testcase showing breakage in Sj

Probably not IRA [was Re: IRA vs. frame pointer elimination [PR38952]]

2009-01-23 Thread Dave Korn
Dave Korn wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: >> H.J. Lu wrote: >>> An IRA setjmp bug was fixed recently: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38587 >>> >>> Does it fix your problem? >> I'm not sure, but my source tree is at r.143552, which is just a couple >> of revs before your fix went in.

Definitely not IRA [was Re: Probably not IRA [was Re: IRA vs. frame pointer elimination [PR38952]]]

2009-01-23 Thread Dave Korn
Dave Korn wrote: [ ... snip ... ] Sorry, the conclusion of that post evolved a bit while I was writing it, but I forgot to update the subject. This is what I should have posted it as. I'll start a fresh thread when I know more about the cause of the failure. cheers, DaveK