On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:09:34PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> And it's too late to do it after STV pass and therefore we disable it
>>> when stack is not properly aligned.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:09:34PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> And it's too late to do it after STV pass and therefore we disable it
>> when stack is not properly aligned. I think this argumentation goes in
>> a loop.
>
> This is a
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:09:34PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> And it's too late to do it after STV pass and therefore we disable it
> when stack is not properly aligned. I think this argumentation goes in
> a loop.
This is a P1 that needs to be fixed, so that we don't defer this forever,
w
2016-02-02 17:03 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 16:25 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> w
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:25 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> 2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
2016-02-02 16:25 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> w
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich
wrote:
> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:46:26AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> So, is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02129.html
>> >> ok for trunk then (alone or with additional sorry, incremental or not?)?
>> >> I believe it does just that.
>>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wr
2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bi
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:46:26AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> So, is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02129.html
> >> ok for trunk then (alone or with additional sorry, incremental or not?)?
> >> I believe it does just that.
> >
> > This patch is WRONG.
> >
> > --
> > H.J.
>
> You will
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +01
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12
2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> The bottom line i
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> >> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the co
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> >> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
>> >> number for DImode or you can just turn off
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
> >> number for DImode or you can just turn off STV. My suggestion is
> >> to use my patch.
> >
> > Uros
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>>> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
>>> number for DImode or you can just turn off STV. My suggestion is
>>> to use my patch.
>>
>> Uros, any preferenc
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
>> number for DImode or you can just turn off STV. My suggestion is
>> to use my patch.
>
> Uros, any preferences here? I mean, it is possible to use
> e.g. the ix86_opti
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:42:02AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> 2016-01-27 Jakub Jelinek
> >> Ilya Enkovich
> >>
> >> PR target/69454
> >> * config/i386/i386.c (convert_scalars_to_vector): Remove
> >> stack alignment fixes.
> >>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-01-28 9:00 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enko
2016-01-28 9:00 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> 2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
wrote:
> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix8
2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> > @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
>>> > opts->x_
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> > @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
>> > opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_VZEROUPPER;
>> >if
On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
> > opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_VZEROUPPER;
> >if (!(opts_set->x_target_flags & MASK_STV))
> > opts->x_ta
2016-01-27 18:43 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently STV pass may require a stack realignment if any
>> transformation occurs to enable SSE registers spill/fill.
>> It appears it's invalid to increase stack alignment requirements
>> at
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently STV pass may require a stack realignment if any
> transformation occurs to enable SSE registers spill/fill.
> It appears it's invalid to increase stack alignment requirements
> at this point. Thus we have to either assume w
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
> opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_VZEROUPPER;
>if (!(opts_set->x_target_flags & MASK_STV))
> opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_STV;
> + /* Disable STV if -
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently STV pass may require a stack realignment if any
> transformation occurs to enable SSE registers spill/fill.
> It appears it's invalid to increase stack alignment requirements
> at this point. Thus we have to either assume w
Hi,
Currently STV pass may require a stack realignment if any
transformation occurs to enable SSE registers spill/fill.
It appears it's invalid to increase stack alignment requirements
at this point. Thus we have to either assume we need stack to be
aligned if are going to run STV pass or disable
33 matches
Mail list logo