--- Comment #23 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:19
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #22 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-18 08:31 ---
In the test case from bug 43286, should_replace_address does not perform the
following replacement because the address cost is the same and the replacement
is only done if new_rtx is more expensive than old_rtx.
old
--- Comment #21 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-18 08:29 ---
*** Bug 43286 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 23:53 ---
I'll leave it to someone else to implement and test the details...
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 23:47 ---
In r118474, cse.c:find_best_addr makes the replacement here:
if ((addr_folded_cost < addr_cost
|| (addr_folded_cost == addr_cost
/* ??? The rtx_cost comparison is left ove
--- Comment #18 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 23:45 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> In fwprop.c of r118475, we get to propagate_rtx_1 (fwprop.c:334):
>
> /* Copy propagations are always ok. Otherwise check the costs. */
> if (!(REG_P (old) && REG_P
--- Comment #17 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-02-10 23:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 regression] Code size
increase on ARM due to poor register allocation
> Perhaps we should prefer addresses based on the frame pointer over other
> addresses?
Yes, that's definitely better from
--- Comment #16 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 22:50 ---
In fwprop.c of r118475, we get to propagate_rtx_1 (fwprop.c:334):
/* Copy propagations are always ok. Otherwise check the costs. */
if (!(REG_P (old) && REG_P (new))
&& !should_re
--- Comment #15 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 19:24 ---
The difference between r118474 (left) and r118475 just before register
allocation (in the .life2 dumps) is this:
2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED 2 NOTE_INSN_DELETED
8 NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK
--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 17:50 ---
Vlad, this is another one that you probably should have a look at, please.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 17:23 ---
As comment #12 shows, CSE can't do much about this -- there is no common
subexpression before register allocation.
Vlad, this is another one that you probably should have a look at, please.
I will have a look at th
11 matches
Mail list logo
