Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-07-13 Thread Dmitry Plotnikov
2012/6/30 Georg-Johann Lay g...@gcc.gnu.org: Is there a special reason to restrict it to SYMBOL_REF? Doesn't the same issue occur with, e.g. (const (plus (symbol_ref const_int))) or label_ref? Hi! We have added splits for symbol_ref plus const and label_ref. With this patch, assembly code and

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-07-04 Thread Dmitry Melnik
On 06/29/2012 06:31 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: Ok with this comment? +;; Split symbol_refs at the later stage (after cprop), instead of generating +;; movt/movw pair directly at expand. Otherwise corresponding high_sum +;; and lo_sum would be merged back into memory load at cprop.

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-30 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Dmitry Melnik schrieb: On 06/27/2012 07:53 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: Please update the ChangeLog entry (it's not appropriate to mention Sourcery G++) and add a comment as Steven has suggested. Otherwise OK. Updated. Ok to commit now? -- Best regards, Dmitry 2009-05-29 Julian Brown

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-29 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
+;; Split symbol_refs at the later stage (after cprop), instead of generating +;; movt/movw pair directly at expand. Otherwise corresponding high_sum +;; and lo_sum would be merged back into memory load at cprop. However, I would rewrite part of your comment as +;; movt/movw is preferable,

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-29 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 29 June 2012 14:48, Dmitry Melnik d...@ispras.ru wrote: On 06/27/2012 07:55 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: I must admit that I had been suggesting to Zhenqiang about turning this off by tightening the movsi_insn predicates rather than adding a split, but given that it appears to produce

[RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-27 Thread Dmitry Melnik
Hi, We'd like to note about CodeSourcery's patch for ARM backend, from which GCC mainline can gain 4% on SPEC2K INT: http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded/plain/recipes/gcc/gcc-4.5/linaro/gcc-4.5-linaro-r99369.patch (also the patch is attached). Originally, we noticed that GNU Go works

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-27 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Dmitry Melnik d...@ispras.ru wrote: This patch can be applied to current trunk and passes regtest successfully on qemu-arm. Maybe it will be good to have it in trunk? If everybody agrees, we can take care of committing it. If the patch is approved, can you

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-27 Thread Julian Brown
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:58:36 +0400 Dmitry Melnik d...@ispras.ru wrote: This patch can be applied to current trunk and passes regtest successfully on qemu-arm. Maybe it will be good to have it in trunk? If everybody agrees, we can take care of committing it. No objection from me (as the

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-27 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 27/06/12 15:58, Dmitry Melnik wrote: Hi, We'd like to note about CodeSourcery's patch for ARM backend, from which GCC mainline can gain 4% on SPEC2K INT: http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded/plain/recipes/gcc/gcc-4.5/linaro/gcc-4.5-linaro-r99369.patch (also the patch is

Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

2012-06-27 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 27 June 2012 15:58, Dmitry Melnik d...@ispras.ru wrote: Hi, We'd like to note about CodeSourcery's patch for ARM backend, from which GCC mainline can gain 4% on SPEC2K INT: http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded/plain/recipes/gcc/gcc-4.5/linaro/gcc-4.5-linaro-r99369.patch (also the