On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 02:45 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Something commited a few days ago had resulted in a serious performance
> > hit for SPEC sixtrack on 64 bits machines... The obvious suspect is
> > Sebastian Pop's scev patch. The affected targets ar
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Something commited a few days ago had resulted in a serious performance
> hit for SPEC sixtrack on 64 bits machines... The obvious suspect is
> Sebastian Pop's scev patch. The affected targets are at least AMD64 [1]
> and PPC64 [2] but not i686 [3].
>
> Sebastia
Snapshot gcc-3.4-20050816 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20050816/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.4 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_4-20050816
You'll
Hi,
> I've taken the liberty of cleaning up the L_callt_save_interrupt
> #ifdef, making it consistent with the following one for
> L_callt_save_all_interrupt. (This not only removes the .text error, but
> adopts the easier to handle layout of the latter.)
> Would you mind applying the attached pa
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:15:49AM +0800, Ling-hua Tseng wrote:
> I figured out the `free_bb_for_insn()' is called before the reorg pass,
> and I would like to use the CFG in the reorg pass for a reason.
You can't, because the reorg pass destroys the CFG. You'd have to
recompute the CFG from scra
Hi,
Something commited a few days ago had resulted in a serious performance
hit for SPEC sixtrack on 64 bits machines... The obvious suspect is
Sebastian Pop's scev patch. The affected targets are at least AMD64 [1]
and PPC64 [2] but not i686 [3].
Sebastian, any idea what might have caused this
Vijaya Kishore Idimadakala wrote:
> ../configure --with-cpu=PowerPC. And it is giving me
> an error during make saying
> "Unknown CPU given in --with-cpu=PowerPC"
gcc-help is a more appropriate place for beginner questions. Try
reading the documentation, e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.
F. Heitkamp wrote:
> ../../gcc-cvs-3-3/gcc//gcc/unwind-dw2.c -o libgcc/./unwind-dw2.o
> /tmp/ccNkOiHW.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/ccNkOiHW.s:3142: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `stvx'
You didn't mention the binutils version or how it was configured. It
appears that it isn't completely compatible
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:35:33PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Unforutnately the actual size we want to limit is somewhat variable (for
> kernel it is pretty small, in usual case few hounderd K is probably good
> choice).
I disagree. If recusion is involved, even a few K may be unacceptable.
That
Hi all,
I'm trying to overcome an optimisation problem in my port of gcc. When
the prologue and epilogue are generated as RTL lists, the compiler
notices that certain registers are live, and emits save/restore
sequences for them, with the appropriate stack adjustments. Later on,
register rena
> As already stated I think that the usage of different algorithms for
> calculating live info causes the problem. Is there a reason that the
> live analysis used by global alloc isn't used everywhere?
Vlad promised to update it to use df.c once it wasn't "1% slower", which
would make it easily re
Hello,
the 920501-4.c testcase currently fails on s390x with a
"fatal error: internal consistency failure" in reg rename.
The example uses an uninitialized variable. Normal live analysis
consideres this variable to be live over all basic blocks.
But global alloc uses a special liveness checker co
| Beyond the "-Werror would have barfed" rationale, I have more
evidence
| that %p works everywhere we host GCC. If you look at the sources,
| there are already a few uses of %p that have snuck in. So if it was
a
| problem we would have known by now.
|
| Do we assert for any other C90 feature
It could still be done, even if we inline.
There is nothing that prevents us from adding space to the stack
allocation only at that point, it's just not coded in gcc to do that.
...and take the stack alloc back after the inlined call is finished.
This is what the original example needs; it doesn
The question is in fact: what is a section for GCC? Is it just a way
to
group functions together to improve memory cache efficiency; or is the
GCC user authorised to use sections to forbid access to some functions
at link time?
For user-declared ("attribute") sections, GCC just outputs
the
15 matches
Mail list logo
