On 22 Mar 2010, at 17:44, Ian Bolton wrote:
>> Enabling BB-reorder only if profile info is available, is not the
>> right way to go. The compiler really doesn't place blocks in sane
>> places without it -- and it shouldn't have to, either. For example if
>> you split an edge at some point, the las
Hi all,
Can this "STARTING_FRAME_OFFSET" macro be defined to be a non-constant
value ( changes with the "current_function_args_size")?
As the target process has "FP+offset" with postive "offset"( stack
grows upward, and parameters in stack grows downward), for example,
call foo( arg1, arg2, arg3
Hi,
There are a number of failures in my latest run
of sparc-rtems4.10 but the ones I have gone back
and run the executable by hand actually pass.
I have no idea why this is happening and wondered
if someone had some insight as to what I should
look at next. From gcc.log
Executing on host: /use
Is there any reason why BB reorder has been disabled
in bb-reorder.c for -Os, such that you can't even
turn it on with -freorder-blocks?
From what I've heard on this list in recent days,
BB reorder gives good performance wins such that
most people would still want it on even if it did
increase cod
For packages of GCC I would like to see a common location where plugins can be
installed; currently a path to the plugin has to be given on the command line,
which is likely to be different for different installations. What about
-fplugin= (without the .so) meaning to search for the plugin in a
Matthias Klose wrote:
For packages of GCC I would like to see a common location where plugins
can be installed; currently a path to the plugin has to be given on the
command line, which is likely to be different for different
installations. What about -fplugin= (without the .so) meaning to
se
On 03/23/2010 05:55 AM, redriver jiang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can this "STARTING_FRAME_OFFSET" macro be defined to be a non-constant
> value ( changes with the "current_function_args_size")?
>
> As the target process has "FP+offset" with postive "offset"( stack
> grows upward, and parameters in sta
Does -Os mean "optimize even if it makes things a bit bigger" or does it
mean "optimize only to make it smaller"? If the latter then the current
behavior would appear to be the correct one.
paul
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Bolton [mailto:bol...@icerasemi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are a number of failures in my latest run
> of sparc-rtems4.10 but the ones I have gone back
> and run the executable by hand actually pass.
> I have no idea why this is happening and wondered
> if someone had some insight as t
On 03/23/2010 03:01 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
Hi,
There are a number of failures in my latest run
of sparc-rtems4.10 but the ones I have gone back
and run the executable by hand actually pass.
I have no idea why this is happening and w
> From: Ian Bolton [mailto:bol...@icerasemi.com]
> > Is there any reason why BB reorder has been disabled
> > in bb-reorder.c for -Os, such that you can't even
> > turn it on with -freorder-blocks?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:21:05PM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
> Does -Os mean "optimize even if it ma
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> On 03/23/2010 03:01 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Joel Sherrill
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There are a number of failures in my latest run
>>> of sparc-rtems4.10 but the ones I have gone back
>>> and
Thank you very much! :)
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Ian Bolton wrote:
> Is there any reason why BB reorder has been disabled
> in bb-reorder.c for -Os, such that you can't even
> turn it on with -freorder-blocks?
No, you should have the option to turn it on if you wish to do so. If
that is not possible, I consider
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100323 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100323/
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/branches
I'm fixing a bug. It's caused by uninitialized caller save pass data.
One function in the test case uses the "optimize" attribute with "O2"
option. So even with -O0 in command line, GCC calls caller save pass for
that function. The problem is init_caller_save is called in
backend_inti_target if
Hi all,
I'm using GCC 4.1.2 20070626 on a server with Intel Xeon X5570.
How do I turn on the compiler option for SSE4? I've tried -msse4, -msse4.1 and
-msse4.2, but they all returned the error message cc1: error: unrecognized
command line option "-msse4.1" (for whichever option I tried).
Thank
On 3/23/2010 11:02 PM, Rayne wrote:
I'm using GCC 4.1.2 20070626 on a server with Intel Xeon X5570.
How do I turn on the compiler option for SSE4? I've tried -msse4, -msse4.1 and -msse4.2,
but they all returned the error message cc1: error: unrecognized command line option
"-msse4.1" (for whic
18 matches
Mail list logo
