On 19/10/16 17:06, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 10/19/16 12:44, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 19 October 2016 at 10:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
On
On 10/19/16 12:44, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 10:34, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon
>>> wrote:
On 18 October 2016
On 19 October 2016 at 10:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger
On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
I am seeing a lot of regressions since this
On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> I am seeing a lot of regressions since this patch was committed:
>>>
On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> I am seeing a lot of regressions since this patch was committed:
>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/241273/report-build-info.html
>>
On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> I am seeing a lot of regressions since this patch was committed:
> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/241273/report-build-info.html
>
> (you can click on "REGRESSED" to see the list of regressions, "sum"
> and "log" to
Hi,
On 17 October 2016 at 18:47, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 30/09/16 14:34, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> On 09/30/16 12:14, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
> we do have
On 30/09/16 14:34, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 09/30/16 12:14, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Eric Botcazou wrote:
A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
Yes. good
On 09/30/16 12:14, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
>>> we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
>>
>> Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
>
> Yes. good idea. I was not aware that we
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
>> we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
>
>Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
Yes. good idea. I was not aware that we already have that kind of tests.
When trying to
> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
> we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch mitigates the excessive stack usage on arm in code
> that does lots of int64 shift ops like sha512.
>
> It reduces the stack usage in that example from 4K to 2K while
> less than 0.5K would be
Hi,
this patch mitigates the excessive stack usage on arm in code
that does lots of int64 shift ops like sha512.
It reduces the stack usage in that example from 4K to 2K while
less than 0.5K would be expected.
In all cases the additional set instructions are optimized later
so that this caused
14 matches
Mail list logo