On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM, David Meggy wrote:
> Hi, I'm working on a very embedded project where we have no operating
> system, and there is no window overflow trap handler. I'm really
> stretched for memory and I'd like to reduce the stack size. I haven't
> not being able to find anyone e
This is the intended behavior, though now I see that the documentation
isn't very clear.
You need to use -fprofile-use - the typical usage scenario is to
compile with -fprofile-generate
to build an executable to do profile collection, and then compile with
-fprofile-use
to build optimized code usin
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Hariharan wrote:
> Hi Seongbae,
> Does that mean that someone cant use the profile just to annotate branches
> (and get better code by that), without having to get the additional baggage
> of "unroll-loops", "peel-loops" etc?
You can do that by selectively turning
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Hutchinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Register saves by prolog (pushes) are typically made with reference to
> "df_regs_ever_live_p()" or "regs_ever_live. "||
>
> If my understanding is correct, these calls reflect register USEs and
> not register DEFs
ed.
> This is true even if function is not a leaf function (as same register
> would be preserved by deeper calls)
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Hutchinson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECT
2008/3/1 Andrew Hutchinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm am still struggling with a good solution that avoids unneeded saves
> of parameter registers.
>
> To solve problem all I need to know are the registers actually used for
> parameters. Since the caller assumes all of these are clobbered by
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Joel Sherrill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moving on the SPARC, I see a lot of similar
> unsupported instruction failures. I only
> see a single sparc feature test. It is for
> "-multrasparc -mvis" and it is actually
> passing on the sparc instructio
2008/3/13 Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Joel Sherrill
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Moving on the SPARC, I see a lot of simi
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Joel Sherrill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> >
> >> Can someone familiar with VIS provide an instruction
> >> that is OK to do a run-time test with to check if
> >> it is supported?
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps this fragment fro
Thanks for the detailed instruction on how to reproduce it
- I have successfully reproduced the problem, and narrowed it down
to combine that's deleting the insn in question.
Hopefully I'll be able to figure out what's wrong soon.
Seongbae
On 6/10/07, Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
ow merge happens.
Thanks,
Seongbae
On 6/10/07, Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the detailed instruction on how to reproduce it
- I have successfully reproduced the problem, and narrowed it down
to combine that's deleting the insn in question.
Hopefully I&#
On 6/12/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> On ia64 SPEC2000 I see fma3d and applu now miscompare.
On x86_64 186.wupwise ICEs with -O2 -ffast-math and FDO:
/gcc/spec/sb-haydn-fdo-64/x86_64/install-200706120559/bin/gfortran -c -o
zsca
On 6/14/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On ia64 SPEC2000 I see fma3d and applu now miscompare.
> >>
> >
> > On x86_64 186.wupwise ICEs with -O2 -ffas
On 6/16/07, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I need some help making m68hc11_reorg() work after the dataflow merge, in
particular this bit:
/* Re-create the REG_DEAD notes. These notes are used in the machine
description to use the best assembly directives. */
if
Forwarding to gcc@, as this might be interesting to other people,
and I'd like to ask whoever working on ia64 to take this issue up.
Seongbae
-- Forwarded message --
From: Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jun 18, 2007 12:44 AM
Subject: INCOMING_RETU
On 6/19/07, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..
Hmm, how do you handle arg_pointer_rtx, frame_pointer_rtx and the like?
The are all uninitialized until the prologue is emitted, which is some time
after reload.
ARG_POINTER_REGNUM is included in the artificial defs of all bl
On 6/19/07, Sunzir Deepur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hello,
when I compile with -dv -fdump-rtl-* I somtimes see in the VCG files
some edges that have no meaning in the flow of the program.
these edges are always green and class 3.
what are those edges ? what is their purposes ?
thank you
sunzi
On 6/26/07, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After the dataflow merge (and after doing a couple of other patches that
were needed just to boostrap GCC on IA64 HP-UX), I am still getting some
failures in the GCC testsuite and am hoping for some advise / help on
figuring out what is going on
On 7/18/07, Sunzir Deepur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi list,
Is it ok to assume that when I compile a C file (that is guranteed to have
some code in it) under the following flags, I always get the mentioned
VCG file (and do not get a bigger one) ?
Flags Maximum VCG
On 7/30/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/27/07 9:58 AM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >> I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
> >> I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
> >> option?
> >
> > to cancel this category
On 8/17/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> we should talk. I am avail today. i am leaving on vacation tomorrow
> for a week.
Please send me the patch before you leave (and please leave valinor
turned on) - I'll give a look while you're gone.
--
#pragma ident "Seongbae Park, com
On 8/28/07, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> that obviously is not the case here, though. Do you (or someone else
> responsible for df) have time to have a look at this problem?
> Otherwise, we may discuss it forever, but we will not get anywhere.
>
> Zdenek
Open a PR and assign it
On 9/27/07, Hariharan Sandanagobalane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am implementing support for PBO on picochip port of GCC (not yet
> submitted to mainline).
>
> I see that GCC generates 2 files, xx.gcno and xx.gcda, containing the
> profile information, the former containing the flow gr
On 10/5/07, Hariharan Sandanagobalane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Seongbae Park (???, ???) wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Hariharan Sandanagobalane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I am implementing support for PBO on picochip port of GCC (not yet
> >> submitted to mainline).
> >>
> >> I se
On 10/16/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > I have a bug I'm trying to investigate where, starting in gcc-4.2.x,
> > the loop invariant pass considers a computation involving a global
> > register
On 10/16/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:53:37 -0700
>
> Annyoung haseyo, Park-sanseng-nim,
:)
> > loop-invariant.cc uses ud-chain.
> > So if there
On 10/14/07, Darryl L. Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On SPARC there is an ABI that is V8+ which allows the linking (and
> mixing) of V8 ABI but makes uses of features of 64bit UltraSparc CPUs
> (that were not available in the older 32bit only CPUs). Admittedly
> looking at the wa
On 10/19/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:25:14 -0700
>
> > If you're not in a hurry, can you wait
> > till I run the regtest against 4.2 on x86-64 ?
On 10/19/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:56:49 -0700
>
> > Did you replace the DF_REF_REG_USE with DEF ?
> > If so, that's not correct. We need to add DE
Hi Dave,
On x86-64, no regression in 4.2 with the patch.
So both 4.2 and mainline patches are OK.
I'd appreciate it if you can add the testcase
- it's up to you whether to add it in a separate patch or with this patch.
Thanks for fixing it.
Seongbae
On 10/19/07, Seongbae Park
On 10/24/07, Revital1 Eres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While testing a patch for the SMS I got an ICE which seems
> to be related to the fact we build def-use chains only
> and not use-def chains. (removed in the following patch -
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01682.
On 10/24/07, Revital1 Eres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The problem arises when we delete an insn from the df that contains a
> > > use but do not update the def-use chain of it's def as we do not have
> > > the use-def chain to reach it's def, This later causes a problem when
> > > we try to d
I think both sides are talking over each other, partially because two
different goals are in mind.
IMHO, there are two extremes when it comes to the so called debugging
optimized code.
One camp wants the full debuggability (let's call them debuggability
crowd) - which means
they want to know the v
33 matches
Mail list logo
