On 06/11/2018 20:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:43:36PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/11/2018 18:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:46:53AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
Well it generates new 'light-weight' prolog
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 07:43:36PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 18:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:46:53AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >> Well it generates new 'light-weight' prologue and epilogue sequences for
> >> the 'shrunk' co
On 06/11/2018 19:43, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 18:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:46:53AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2018 01:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at
On 06/11/2018 18:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:46:53AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/11/2018 01:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:09:30AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>>> Sho
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:46:53AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/11/2018 01:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:09:30AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > Shouldn't you be able to do this per function at least?
On 06/11/2018 01:40, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:09:30AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> Shouldn't you be able to do this per function at least?
do what per function? track speculation?
>>>
>>> disable shrink-wrapping only when any
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:09:30AM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>> Shouldn't you be able to do this per function at least?
> >>
> >> do what per function? track speculation?
> >
> > disable shrink-wrapping only when any speculation was there
> > (this is about __bultin_s
On 05/11/2018 10:05, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:04 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/11/2018 13:53, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:38 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>>> wrote:
Although there's no fundamental reason why shrink wrappin
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:04 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 02/11/2018 13:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:38 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Although there's no fundamental reason why shrink wrapping and
> >> speculation tracking are incompatible,
On 02/11/2018 13:53, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:38 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>>
>> Although there's no fundamental reason why shrink wrapping and
>> speculation tracking are incompatible, a phase-ordering requirement (we
>> need to do speculation tracking before th
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:38 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> Although there's no fundamental reason why shrink wrapping and
> speculation tracking are incompatible, a phase-ordering requirement (we
> need to do speculation tracking before the final basic block clean-up)
> means that the shri
Although there's no fundamental reason why shrink wrapping and
speculation tracking are incompatible, a phase-ordering requirement (we
need to do speculation tracking before the final basic block clean-up)
means that the shrink wrapping pass can undo some of the changes the
speculation tracking pas
12 matches
Mail list logo
