On 08/25/2011 02:07 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
On 08/25/2011 05:57 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
Instead of using explicitly necessary number of registers, I used
contains_reg_of_mode which also checks the number of necessary registers
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 08/25/2011 05:57 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Vladimir Makarov writes:
>>> Instead of using explicitly necessary number of registers, I used
>>> contains_reg_of_mode which also checks the number of necessary registers
>>> but also it checks that the register c
On 08/25/2011 05:57 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Vladimir Makarov writes:
Instead of using explicitly necessary number of registers, I used
contains_reg_of_mode which also checks the number of necessary registers
but also it checks that the register class can hold value of given
mode. This
Vladimir Makarov writes:
>Instead of using explicitly necessary number of registers, I used
> contains_reg_of_mode which also checks the number of necessary registers
> but also it checks that the register class can hold value of given
> mode. This resulted in different register pressure c
Starting Aug 20, there is about 1.5% degradation on x86 SPEC2000,
please see http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/.
The reason for this was my patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-08/msg01623.html for solving code
performance degradation on MIPS.
Instead of using explicitly ne
