On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:14:02PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
> > Well, that's up to the target maintainers to decide, maybe
> > -mno-nested-functions instead?
>
> Is -mno-nested-functions or -mno-nested-function-pointers too
> C-c
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Does XLC have a similar switch whose name we can use?
The IBM XL compiler is discussing a similar feature, but it is not
implemented yet and does not have a formal command line option name.
- David
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:14 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>> Well, that's up to the target maintainers to decide, maybe
>> -mno-nested-functions instead?
>
> Is -mno-nested-functions or -mno-nested-function-pointers too
> C-centric or GCC
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Well, that's up to the target maintainers to decide, maybe
> -mno-nested-functions instead?
Is -mno-nested-functions or -mno-nested-function-pointers too
C-centric or GCC-centric? I don't know what wording would be more
informative, but
[...]
On Jul 7, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
>> I certainly can call the switch -mno-static-chain, which is perhaps more
>> meaningful (at least to us compiler folk, I'm not sure static chain means
>> much
>> to the normal
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 05:53:09PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Well, I guess you don't propose to build glibc with -mno-r11? The compiler
> certainly can't figure out in _all_ cases - but it should be able to handle
> most of the cases (with LTO even more cases) ok, no?
No, we are no proposi
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
>> wrote:
>> > This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
>> > PowerPC
>> > calls through
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
> > PowerPC
> > calls through function pointers (or virtual function). Most of the
> > langu
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Hum. Can't the compiler figure this our itself per-call-site? At least
>> the name of the command-line switch -m[no-]r11 is meaningless to me.
>> Points-to information sho
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Hum. Can't the compiler figure this our itself per-call-site? At least
> the name of the command-line switch -m[no-]r11 is meaningless to me.
> Points-to information should be able to tell you if the function pointer
> points to
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
> PowerPC
> calls through function pointers (or virtual function). Most of the languages
> on the PowerPC do not need the static chain being loaded when called, and
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
> PowerPC
> calls through function pointers (or virtual function). Most of the languages
> on the PowerPC do not need the static chain being loaded when called, and
>
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit PowerPC
calls through function pointers (or virtual function). Most of the languages
on the PowerPC do not need the static chain being loaded when called, and
adding this instruction can slow down code that calls very short fu
13 matches
Mail list logo
