>
> Those macros use "=&b" etc. in asm constraints, so IMHO you'll get the same
> error as for say:
>
> int
> foo (void)
> {
> bar ();
> int i = 0;
> asm volatile ("" : "+b" (i));
> bar ();
> return i;
> }
>
> when compiled by gcc 4.9 and earlier with -O2 -m32 -fpic:
> error: inconsist
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:34:45PM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:48:57AM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
> > > Posted a patch in libc-alpha:
> > >
> > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00701.html
> >
> > That looks wrong. The non-PIC patterns that a
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:48:57AM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
> > Posted a patch in libc-alpha:
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00701.html
>
> That looks wrong. The non-PIC patterns that are enabled unconditionally
> with the patch set/use ebx, which will not work w
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:48:57AM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
> Posted a patch in libc-alpha:
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00701.html
That looks wrong. The non-PIC patterns that are enabled unconditionally
with the patch set/use ebx, which will not work with pre-GCC 5 in
achenko; Andrew Pinski
> Cc: Uros Bizjak; Vladimir Makarov; GCC Patches
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/X, i386, PR54232] Enable EBX for x86 in 32bits PIC code
>
> On 10/24/14 17:37, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> > What if we remove the check?
> > glibc build pass?
> That wo
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> The test passes now. So let's remove xfail.
>
> 2014-10-29 Evgeny Stupachenko
>
> gcc/testsuite
> * gcc.target/i386/pr23098.c: Remove xfail.
OK.
Thanks,
Uros.
The test passes now. So let's remove xfail.
2014-10-29 Evgeny Stupachenko
gcc/testsuite
* gcc.target/i386/pr23098.c: Remove xfail.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr23098.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr23098.c
index 7f118dc..7f118bb 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.targe
On 10/24/14 17:37, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
What if we remove the check?
glibc build pass?
That would be my inclination... But it's not my decision to make.
The first check is to verify glibc builds and passes its testsuite with
the new compiler and that check removed.
jeff
What if we remove the check?
glibc build pass?
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> wrote:
>> i386 specific part of the patch:
>>
>> 2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich
>> Vladimir Makarov
>> * gcc/config/i3
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> i386 specific part of the patch:
>
> 2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich
> Vladimir Makarov
> * gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
> (ix86_init_pic_reg): New.
> (ix86_select_alt_pic_regn
Evgeny Stupachenko writes:
> Reattached.
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ChangeLog for testsuite:
>>>
>>> 2014-10-13 Evgeny Stupachenko
>>>
>>> PR target/8340
>>> PR middle-end/476
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> RA improvements are the way to go -- however, my understanding is that
> overall the code is better now than it was before Intel's changes, so I
> don't consider the performance side as a blocker for this code.
>
The new approach improves PIC c
On 10/14/14 07:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
For the first two, I think (and said it before already) that the current
model of emitting set_got from a target hook during RA can't work, as there
can be calls in the prologue, and the prologue is inserted before the
set_got in that case. I really think
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:49 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> wrote:
>> Reattached.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko
>>> wrote:
>>>
ChangeLog for testsuite:
>>
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:03:38AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> Can you add a PR markers to your changelog
>
> PR target/8340
> PR middle-end/47602
> PR rtl-optimization/55458
>
> Actually I think there is an additional test in 47602. Can you please add
> it to the suite? You'll a
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Reattached.
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ChangeLog for testsuite:
>>>
>>> 2014-10-13 Evgeny Stupachenko
>>>
>>> PR target/83
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Reattached.
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ChangeLog for testsuite:
>>>
>>> 2014-10-13 Evgeny Stupachenko
>>>
>>> PR target/83
Reattached.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> wrote:
>
>> ChangeLog for testsuite:
>>
>> 2014-10-13 Evgeny Stupachenko
>>
>> PR target/8340
>> PR middle-end/47602
>> PR rtl-optimization/55458
>>
On 10/13/14 08:53, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
ChangeLog for testsuite:
2014-10-13 Evgeny Stupachenko
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
PR rtl-optimization/55458
* gcc.target/i386/pic-1.c: Remove dg-error as test should pass now.
* gcc.target/i386/
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> ChangeLog for testsuite:
>
> 2014-10-13 Evgeny Stupachenko
>
> PR target/8340
> PR middle-end/47602
> PR rtl-optimization/55458
> * gcc.target/i386/pic-1.c: Remove dg-error as test should pass now.
>
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> Patch updated with the comment:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index 2a64d2d..5fd6a82 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> @@ -12455,9 +12455,18 @@ ix86_address_cost (
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
>>-#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \
>>- ((TARGET_64BIT && (ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL_PIC \
>>- || TARGET_PECOFF)) \
>>- || !flag_pic ? INVALID_REGNUM \
>>- : reload_completed ? REGNO (pic_offset_table_rtx) \
>>+#def
Patch updated with the comment:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 2a64d2d..5fd6a82 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -12455,9 +12455,18 @@ ix86_address_cost (rtx x, enum machine_mode,
addr_space_t, bool)
|| REGNO (par
>-#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \
>- ((TARGET_64BIT && (ix86_cmodel == CM_SMALL_PIC \
>- || TARGET_PECOFF)) \
>- || !flag_pic ? INVALID_REGNUM \
>- : reload_completed ? REGNO (pic_offset_table_rtx) \
>+#define PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM \
>+ ((TARGET_64BIT && (ix86_cmodel =
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/10/14 01:42, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The patch enables EBX in RA for x86 32bits PIC mode.
>> It was discussed here:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02513.html
>> Now there is working version with good perfo
On 10/10/14 01:42, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
Hi,
The patch enables EBX in RA for x86 32bits PIC mode.
It was discussed here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02513.html
Now there is working version with good performance and stability level
- it could be a solid first step of EBX ena
On 2014-10-10 3:42 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
Hi,
The patch enables EBX in RA for x86 32bits PIC mode.
It was discussed here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02513.html
Now there is working version with good performance and stability level
- it could be a solid first step of EBX
Updated ChangeLog:
2014-10-10 Ilya Enkovich
Vladimir Makarov
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
(ix86_init_pic_reg): New.
(ix86_select_alt_pic_regnum): Add check on pseudo register.
(ix86_save_reg): Likewise.
(ix86_expand_p
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 02:34:07PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Uros Bizjak writes:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> > wrote:
> >> i386 specific part of the patch:
> >>
> >> 2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich
> >> Vladimir Makarov
> >> * gcc/config/i386/
Uros Bizjak writes:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko
> wrote:
>> i386 specific part of the patch:
>>
>> 2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich
>> Vladimir Makarov
>> * gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
Evgeny: here and in your other submissi
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> i386 specific part of the patch:
>
> 2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich
> Vladimir Makarov
> * gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
> (ix86_init_pic_reg): New.
> (ix86_select_alt_pic_regnu
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> the patch improves performance when previous are applied.
> It makes RTL loop invariant behavior for GOT loads same as it was
> before the 2 previous patches.
> The patch fixes x86 address cost so that cost for addresses with GOT
> regi
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko wrote:
> i386 specific part of the patch:
>
> 2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich
> Vladimir Makarov
> * gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
> (ix86_init_pic_reg): New.
> (ix86_select_alt_pic_regnu
the patch improves performance when previous are applied.
It makes RTL loop invariant behavior for GOT loads same as it was
before the 2 previous patches.
It improves 164.gzip (+9%), 253.perlbmk (+2%) giving ~0.5% to SPEC2000int
(compiled with “-m32 -Ofast -flto -funroll-loops -fPIC”
For example
i386 specific part of the patch:
2014-10-08 Ilya Enkovich
Vladimir Makarov
* gcc/config/i386/i386.c (ix86_use_pseudo_pic_reg): New.
(ix86_init_pic_reg): New.
(ix86_select_alt_pic_regnum): Add check on pseudo register.
(ix86_save_reg): Likewise.
Hi,
The patch enables EBX in RA for x86 32bits PIC mode.
It was discussed here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02513.html
Now there is working version with good performance and stability level
- it could be a solid first step of EBX enabling.
Bootstrap and make check passed.
There
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:20:44PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/24/14 14:32, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >2014-09-24 19:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
> >>On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>>After register allocation we have no idea where GOT address is and
> >>>therefore delegitimize_addre
On 09/24/14 14:32, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2014-09-24 19:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
After register allocation we have no idea where GOT address is and
therefore delegitimize_address target hook becomes less efficient and
cannot remove UNSPECs. That's what I
2014-09-24 19:27 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
> On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> 2014-09-23 20:10 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
>>>
>>> On 09/23/14 10:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:00:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wro
On 09/24/14 00:56, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2014-09-23 20:10 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
On 09/23/14 10:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:00:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:54:37PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
use fixed
2014-09-23 20:10 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
> On 09/23/14 10:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:00:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:54:37PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
> use fixed EBX at least
On 09/23/14 10:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:00:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:54:37PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
use fixed EBX at least until we make sure pseudo PIC doesn't harm debug
info generation. If
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:00:00AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:54:37PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >>use fixed EBX at least until we make sure pseudo PIC doesn't harm debug
> >>info generation. If we have such option then gcc.tar
On 09/23/14 08:34, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:54:37PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
use fixed EBX at least until we make sure pseudo PIC doesn't harm debug
info generation. If we have such option then gcc.target/i386/pic-1.c and
For debug info, it seems you are already hand
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> look at the sizes of .debug_info/.debug_loc sections with/without the
> patch, or use the locstat utility from elfutils
Not actually part of elfutils, but available either here:
https://github.com/pmachata/dwlocstat
... or packaged in Fedora.
Thanks,
PM
On 09/23/14 08:23, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Here is a patch which combines results of my and Vladimir's work on EBX
enabling.
It works OK for SPEC2000 and SPEC2006 on -Ofast + LTO. It passes bootstrap but
there are few new failures in make ch
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:54:37PM +0400, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> use fixed EBX at least until we make sure pseudo PIC doesn't harm debug
> info generation. If we have such option then gcc.target/i386/pic-1.c and
For debug info, it seems you are already handling this in
delegitimize_address target
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Here is a patch which combines results of my and Vladimir's work on EBX
> enabling.
>
> It works OK for SPEC2000 and SPEC2006 on -Ofast + LTO. It passes bootstrap
> but there are few new failures in make check.
>
> gcc.target/i386/pic-1.c
On 03 Sep 16:19, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 2014-08-29 2:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >Seems your patch doesn't cover all cases. Attached is a modified
> >patch (with your changes included) and a test where double constant is
> >wrongly rematerialized. I also see in ira dump that there is stil
On 09/09/14 10:43, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I've investigated the wrong code generation. I did a mistake in my last
patch excluding pic pseudo from live-range analysis when risky
transformations are on.
Here is the right version of all IRA/LRA changes relative to trunk. I
managed to compile an
; Cc: g...@gnu.org; gcc-patches; Evgeny Stupachenko; Richard Biener; Uros
>> Bizjak; Jeff Law
>> Subject: Re: Enable EBX for x86 in 32bits PIC code
>>
>> On 2014-08-29 2:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> Seems your patch doesn't cover all cases. Attached is a mod
On 2014-08-29 2:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Seems your patch doesn't cover all cases. Attached is a modified
patch (with your changes included) and a test where double constant is
wrongly rematerialized. I also see in ira dump that there is still a
copy of PIC reg created:
Initialization of or
On 08/29/2014 02:47 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Seems your patch doesn't cover all cases. Attached is a modified
> patch (with your changes included) and a test where double constant is
> wrongly rematerialized. I also see in ira dump that there is still a
> copy of PIC reg created:
>
> Initializa
On 08/28/14 02:37, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
2014-08-28 1:39 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
On 08/26/14 15:42, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
--- a/gcc/calls.c
+++ b/gcc/calls.c
@@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initialize_argument_information (int num_actuals
On 08/28/14 07:01, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix ebx
register, use speudo register for GOT base
On 08/28/14 12:58, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix ebx
register, use speudo register for GOT base add
2014-08-28 22:58 GMT+04:00 Uros Bizjak :
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
>> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
>> 32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix
>> ebx register, use speudo register for
2014-08-28 12:28 GMT+04:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2014-08-28 0:19 GMT+04:00 Vladimir Makarov :
>> On 2014-08-26 5:42 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is a patch I tried. I apply it over revision 214215. Unfortunately
>>> I do not have a small reproducer but the problem can be easily r
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
> 32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix
> ebx register, use speudo register for GOT base address and let allocator do
> the re
On 08/28/2014 03:01 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
I'd like to avoid X86_TUNE_RELAX_PIC_REG and always treat EBX as an
allocatable register. This way, we can avoid all mess with implicit
xchgs in atomic_compare_and_swap_doubleword. Also, having
allocatable EBX would allow us to introduce __builtin_cpuid
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
>>> index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/calls.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/calls.c
>>> @@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initialize_argument_information (int num_actuals
>>> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
2014-08-28 17:08 GMT+04:00 Uros Bizjak :
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
>> index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
>> --- a/gcc/calls.c
>> +++ b/gcc/calls.c
>> @@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initialize_argument_information (int
2014-08-28 17:01 GMT+04:00 Uros Bizjak :
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
>> 32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix
>> ebx register, use speudo regis
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
> index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
> --- a/gcc/calls.c
> +++ b/gcc/calls.c
> @@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initialize_argument_information (int num_actuals
> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
> 32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix
> ebx register, use speudo register for GOT base address and let allocator do
>
2014-08-28 16:42 GMT+04:00 Uros Bizjak :
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> wrote:
>> 2014-08-28 1:39 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
>>> On 08/26/14 15:42, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
--- a/gcc/calls.c
+
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2014-08-28 1:39 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
>> On 08/26/14 15:42, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
>>> index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/calls.c
>>> +++ b/gcc/calls.c
>>> @@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initializ
2014-08-28 1:39 GMT+04:00 Jeff Law :
> On 08/26/14 15:42, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
>> index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
>> --- a/gcc/calls.c
>> +++ b/gcc/calls.c
>> @@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initialize_argument_information (int num_actuals
>> ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>>
2014-08-28 0:19 GMT+04:00 Vladimir Makarov :
> On 2014-08-26 5:42 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is a patch I tried. I apply it over revision 214215. Unfortunately
>> I do not have a small reproducer but the problem can be easily reproduced on
>> SPEC2000 benchmark 175.vpr. The pr
On 08/26/14 15:42, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/calls.c b/gcc/calls.c
index 4285ec1..85dae6b 100644
--- a/gcc/calls.c
+++ b/gcc/calls.c
@@ -1122,6 +1122,14 @@ initialize_argument_information (int num_actuals
ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
call_expr_arg_iterator iter;
tree arg;
+if (
On 2014-08-26 5:42 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch I tried. I apply it over revision 214215. Unfortunately I do
not have a small reproducer but the problem can be easily reproduced on
SPEC2000 benchmark 175.vpr. The problem is in read_arch.c:701 where float
value is compared w
On 26 Aug 11:25, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 08/26/2014 04:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > I've looked into one of fails. There is still a problem with
> > allocation in reload. Here is a piece of code which uses float
> > constant:
> >
> > (insn 1199 1198 1200 96 (set (reg:SI 3 bx)
> > (
On 08/26/2014 04:57 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2014-08-26 11:49 GMT+04:00 Ilya Enkovich :
>> 2014-08-25 19:08 GMT+04:00 Vladimir Makarov :
>>> On 2014-08-22 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
32bit PIC mod
2014-08-26 11:49 GMT+04:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2014-08-25 19:08 GMT+04:00 Vladimir Makarov :
>> On 2014-08-22 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
>>> 32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would b
2014-08-25 19:08 GMT+04:00 Vladimir Makarov :
> On 2014-08-22 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
>> 32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix
>> ebx register, use speudo register f
On 08/22/14 06:21, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Such approach worked well on small tests but trying to run some
benchmarks we faced a problem with reload of address constants. The
problem is that when we try to rematerialize address constant or some
constant memory reference, we have to use pic_offset_
On 2014-08-22 8:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Hi,
On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix ebx
register, use speudo register for GOT base address and let allocator do the
rest. This sho
2014-08-25 15:24 GMT+04:00 Hans-Peter Nilsson :
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2014-08-23 5:47 GMT+04:00 Hans-Peter Nilsson :
>> > ...did you send the right version of the patch?
>> > This one uses the RTX-returning hook only in boolean tests,
>> > unless I misread.
>
> (I did, but
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2014-08-23 5:47 GMT+04:00 Hans-Peter Nilsson :
> > ...did you send the right version of the patch?
> > This one uses the RTX-returning hook only in boolean tests,
> > unless I misread.
(I did, but not by much.)
> NULL returned by hook means we do not ha
2014-08-23 5:47 GMT+04:00 Hans-Peter Nilsson :
> (Dropping gcc@ and people known to subscribe to gcc-patches
> from the CC.)
>
> Sorry for the drive-by review, but...
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of
>> ebx usag
(Dropping gcc@ and people known to subscribe to gcc-patches
from the CC.)
Sorry for the drive-by review, but...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of
> ebx usage in 32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best
> approach
Hi,
On Cauldron 2014 we had a couple of talks about relaxation of ebx usage in
32bit PIC mode. It was decided that the best approach would be to not fix ebx
register, use speudo register for GOT base address and let allocator do the
rest. This should be similar to how clang and icc work with
82 matches
Mail list logo
