RE: AutoFDO profile toolchain is open-sourced

2015-05-12 Thread Aditya K
Recently we found an ICE while compiling a program with auto-fdo (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972). The ICE was caused because SSA is not in a valid state when the early inliner is run. The fix was to update_ssa before running the early inliner (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

Re: gcc -S vs clang -S

2015-05-12 Thread Olivier Galibert
Note that at -O3 there is a difference still: clang (3.6.0): addl%esi, %edi movl%edi, %eax retq gcc (4.9.2) leal(%rdi,%rsi), %eax ret Can't tell which is best, if any. OG. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:06 AM, wrote: > > > > >> On May 11, 2015

Re: Missing barrier in outof_cfglayout

2015-05-12 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Am 05/11/2015 um 10:43 PM schrieb Steven Bosscher: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: BTW, what's the policy about unconditional jumps at that time? There are plenty of unconditional jumps around and all are legitimate; just this one generated by cse1 is wrong? If you're

Re: Missing barrier in outof_cfglayout

2015-05-12 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/12/2015 08:58 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Am 05/11/2015 um 10:43 PM schrieb Steven Bosscher: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: BTW, what's the policy about unconditional jumps at that time? There are plenty of unconditional jumps around and all are legitimate; just

Re: gcc -S vs clang -S

2015-05-12 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Note that at -O3 there is a difference still: > clang (3.6.0): > addl%esi, %edi > movl%edi, %eax > retq > > gcc (4.9.2) > leal(%rdi,%rsi), %eax > ret > > Can't tell which is best, if any. But what's your point exactly here? You cannot expect

Re: [x86-64-psABI] RFC: Add R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 and R_X86_64_RELAX_PLT32

2015-05-12 Thread H.J. Lu
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > I will clarify in the spec language. Yes, that is the intention for both > R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 and R_X86_64_RELAX_PLT32. That is what > is implemented on users/hjl/relax branch. > Here is the updated proposal. I changed nop prefix from 0x48 t

gcc-5-20150512 is now available

2015-05-12 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-5-20150512 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20150512/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

Re: gcc -S vs clang -S

2015-05-12 Thread Fei Ding
I think Thiago and Eric just want to know which code-gen is better and why... 2015-05-12 23:29 GMT+08:00 Eric Botcazou : >> Note that at -O3 there is a difference still: >> clang (3.6.0): >> addl%esi, %edi >> movl%edi, %eax >> retq >> >> gcc (4.9.2) >> leal

Re: gcc -S vs clang -S

2015-05-12 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Fei Ding wrote: > I think Thiago and Eric just want to know which code-gen is better and why... You need to understand for a complex process (CISC ISAs) like x86, there is no one right answer sometimes. You need to look at each micro-arch and understand the pipe

Re: [x86-64-psABI] RFC: Add R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 and R_X86_64_RELAX_PLT32

2015-05-12 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 12.05.15 at 20:42, wrote: > Here is the updated proposal. I changed nop prefix from 0x48 > to 0x67 and clarified how foo@GOTPCREL(%rip) should be > resolved. Mind clarifying how 67 is better than 48? > I am proposing to add 2 new relocations, R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 and > R_X86_64_RELAX_PLT3