On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 14:44, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On 2/24/20 2:16 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Ping?
> >
> > I'd also like to backport this and the main patch (svn r279463,
> > r10-5505-ge24f6408df1e4c5e8c09785d7b488c492dfb68b3)
> > to the gcc-9 branch.
> >
> > I found t
Hi Christophe,
On 2/24/20 2:16 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Ping?
I'd also like to backport this and the main patch (svn r279463,
r10-5505-ge24f6408df1e4c5e8c09785d7b488c492dfb68b3)
to the gcc-9 branch.
I found the problem addressed by this patch while validating the
backport to gcc-9: although
Ping?
I'd also like to backport this and the main patch (svn r279463,
r10-5505-ge24f6408df1e4c5e8c09785d7b488c492dfb68b3)
to the gcc-9 branch.
I found the problem addressed by this patch while validating the
backport to gcc-9: although the patch applies cleanly except for
testcases dg directives,
tions you generate for this
> is significant, so it likely will throw off the calculations and
> somebody will get unlucky. On the other hand, I don't think we should
> pessimize code for the non-pure-code variants by inflating the size for
> this unconditionally.
>
> It seems there are two ways
On 10/02/2020 09:27, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 17:55, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 07/02/2020 16:43, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote:
When running the testsuite with -fd
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 17:55, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2020 16:43, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>> When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -
On 07/02/2020 16:43, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote:
When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code
for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we
still
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:49, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code
> > for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we
> > still generate "ldr rX, .LCY", which i
On 07/02/2020 13:19, Christophe Lyon wrote:
When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code
for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we
still generate "ldr rX, .LCY", which is what we want to avoid with
-mpure-code. This is latent since a recent impr
When running the testsuite with -fdisable-rtl-fwprop2 and -mpure-code
for cortex-m0, I noticed that some testcases were failing because we
still generate "ldr rX, .LCY", which is what we want to avoid with
-mpure-code. This is latent since a recent improvement in fwprop
(PR88833).
In this patch I
10 matches
Mail list logo
