Re: var-tracking vs. pseudo registers (was: Option overriding in the offloading code path)

Hi! On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:46:00 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Is this not the right way to skip it, or, Bernd, is this because we're > > not yet handling some debug stuff in nvptx? (I tested that > >

Re: Option overriding in the offloading code path

Hi! On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:28:12 +0100, I wrote: > Using [...] to forcefully disable -fvar-tracking (as done in > nvptx_option_override), should then allow me to drop the following > beautiful specimen of a patch (which I didn't commit anywhere, so far): No progress yet with that, so for now, com

Re: var-tracking vs. pseudo registers (was: Option overriding in the offloading code path)

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Is this not the right way to skip it, or, Bernd, is this because we're > not yet handling some debug stuff in nvptx? (I tested that > > does

var-tracking vs. pseudo registers (was: Option overriding in the offloading code path)

Hi! On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:00:54 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:28:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Am I on the right track with my assumption that it is correct that > > nvptx.c:nvptx_option_override is not invoked in the offloading code path, > > so we'd need a n

Re: Option overriding in the offloading code path (was: [nvptx] -freorder-blocks-and-partition, -freorder-functions)

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:28:12AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Am I on the right track with my assumption that it is correct that > nvptx.c:nvptx_option_override is not invoked in the offloading code path, > so we'd need a new target hook (?) to consolidate/override the options in > this scenar

Re: Option overriding in the offloading code path

On 02/25/2015 11:28 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Am I on the right track with my assumption that it is correct that nvptx.c:nvptx_option_override is not invoked in the offloading code path, so we'd need a new target hook (?) to consolidate/override the options in this scenario? I'm surprised by

Option overriding in the offloading code path (was: [nvptx] -freorder-blocks-and-partition, -freorder-functions)

Hi! On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:50:20 +0100, I wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:44:26 +0100, I wrote: > > If -freorder-blocks-and-partition is active, this results in PTX code > > such as: [...] > Such partitioning might not make a lot of sense for the virtual ISA that > PTX is, but disabling it in nvp