Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-11 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/11/11 00:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > I've actually committed it yesterday after discussion with Richi on > IRC. No problem. > While his patch optimizes it, it doesn't do so for -O0 Funny, I almost make this argument for accepting your patch,

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:58:36PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof > > of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something strange, it is > > true). It doesn't have a clear code size effect, some .text > > sections grew, supposedly becau

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-10 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/11 14:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof > of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something strange, it is > true). It doesn't have a clear code size effect, some .text > s

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-09 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/07/11 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek >> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof >>> of bas

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-08 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/11 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek > wrote: >> Hi! >> >> This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof >> of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something strange, it >>

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-08 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/08/11 02:45, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 11/07/11 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek >>> wro

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-08 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 11/07/11 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek >>> wrote: Hi! This pa

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-08 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/07/11 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek >> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof >>> of bas

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-07 Thread Jeff Law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/11 15:53, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek > wrote: >> Hi! >> >> This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof >> of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something strange, it >>

Re: [PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-07 Thread Richard Guenther
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know > that offsetof of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something > strange, it is true). > It doesn't have a clear code size effect, some .text sections > grew, supposedly becaus

[PATCH] Improve VEC_BASE

2011-11-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! This patch attempts to optimize VEC_BASE if we know that offsetof of base is 0 (unless the compiler is doing something strange, it is true). It doesn't have a clear code size effect, some .text sections grew, supposedly because of more inlining, some .text sections shrunk. Bootstrapped/regtes