On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> We're waisting 8 bytes for every gimple_seq_node_d on x86_64 just
> because we might be allocating a structure with a long double
> element (16 byte aligned). I grepped and didn't find traces of
> such a use, so - can we just document that callers
We're waisting 8 bytes for every gimple_seq_node_d on x86_64 just
because we might be allocating a structure with a long double
element (16 byte aligned). I grepped and didn't find traces of
such a use, so - can we just document that callers need to
round up allocation sizes to multiples of the r
Hang on while i put on my flame-proof suit. There.
Merrily trying to make a test-case showing how unmanageable it is to
try to override *math* flags per function, i soon had to stop
because...
$ cat amusing.cc
#include
static __attribute__((optimize("-fno-associative-math"))) double
foo1(double x)
Yes.
But we need to lower after combine and before register allocation.
I'm still figuring out how to do that.
Lowering before combine - in particular causes a lot of code bloat. This
loose all optimization of conditional jumps, shifts etc.
In our case, most lowering is delayed until after relo
Andrew Hutchinson wrote:
> OR partial overlap is preferred (or required)
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that probably would be useful, thanks for the
clarification.
cheers,
DaveK
On 10/16/2009 11:04 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Hutchinson writes:
I can use "=" modifier to make operands use same register and early
clobber "&" to avoid overlaps.
Is it possible to have or construct a contraint that permits partial
overlap operands. (which neither = or& would allow
The situation comes up where no or a partial overlap of registers
permits optimal code - since this can avoid using scratch register
Thus no overlap OR partial overlap is preferred (or required)
Using nothing leaves overlap without preference - full, partial,none
Using = gives the least preff
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Hutchinson writes:
>
>> I can use "=" modifier to make operands use same register and early
>> clobber "&" to avoid overlaps.
>>
>> Is it possible to have or construct a contraint that permits partial
>> overlap operands. (which neither = or & would allow)
>> The
Thanks for your review.
I have submitted bug report.
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Hutchinson
wrote:
I have been adding rotate capability to AVR port and have come across what I
think is bug in
optabs.c: expand_binop()
This occurs during a rotate expans
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Hutchinson
wrote:
> I have been adding rotate capability to AVR port and have come across what I
> think is bug in
> optabs.c: expand_binop()
>
> This occurs during a rotate expansion. For example
>
> target = op0 rotated by op1
>
> In the particular situa
I have been adding rotate capability to AVR port and have come across
what I think is bug in
optabs.c: expand_binop()
This occurs during a rotate expansion. For example
target = op0 rotated by op1
In the particular situation (code extract below) it tries a reverse
rotate of (bits - op1). Wh
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Justin Seyster wrote:
> I'm currently porting a plug-in that used to target the 4.3.0-based
> plug-in branch to the new top-of-tree plug-in system. I'm really
> stymied by a bug whose source I just cannot track down! Usually that
> means there is an error in my
12 matches
Mail list logo
