On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:11 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:53 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
and compiler does generate the same output. i386.c also has
xasm = jmp\t%A0;
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -11388,6 +11400,11 @@ ix86_decompose_address (rtx addr, struct
ix86_address *out)
else
disp = addr; /* displacement */
+ /* Since address override works only on the (reg) part in fs:(reg),
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:53 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
and compiler does generate the same output. i386.c also has
xasm = jmp\t%A0;
xasm = call\t%A0;
for calls. There are no separate indirect call
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:01 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -11388,6 +11400,11 @@ ix86_decompose_address (rtx addr, struct
ix86_address *out)
else
disp = addr; /* displacement */
+
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -11388,6 +11400,11 @@ ix86_decompose_address (rtx addr, struct
ix86_address *out)
else
disp = addr; /* displacement */
+
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:13:49AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
We are expecting address to be 0x1001 - 1 == 0x1000. But, what we get
is 0x1000 + 0x, not 0x1000 since 0x67 address prefix only applies
to
base register to zero-extend 0x to 64bit.
I would call this a bug in the
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:13:49AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
We are expecting address to be 0x1001 - 1 == 0x1000. But, what we get
is 0x1000 + 0x, not 0x1000 since 0x67 address prefix only applies
to
base register
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:26:20AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:13:49AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
We are expecting address to be 0x1001 - 1 == 0x1000. But, what we get
is 0x1000 + 0x, not 0x1000
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:26:20AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:13:49AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
We are expecting address to be 0x1001
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:40 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
We are expecting address to be 0x1001 - 1 == 0x1000. But, what we get
is 0x1000 + 0x, not 0x1000 since 0x67 address prefix only
applies to
base register to zero-extend 0x to 64bit.
I would call
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:19 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
The current x32 implementation uses LEAs to convert 32bit address to
64bit. However, we can use addr32 prefix to use 32bit address directly.
It improves performance by 5% in SPEC CPU 2K/2006. All changes are done
in x86
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:19 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
The current x32 implementation uses LEAs to convert 32bit address to
64bit. However, we can use addr32 prefix to use 32bit address directly.
It improves
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:01 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -13637,7 +13665,8 @@ ix86_print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code)
gcc_unreachable ();
}
- ix86_print_operand (file, x, 0);
+ ix86_print_operand (file, x,
+
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:01 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -13637,7 +13665,8 @@ ix86_print_operand (FILE *file, rtx x, int code)
gcc_unreachable ();
}
- ix86_print_operand (file,
H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes:
@@ -11060,8 +11072,8 @@ ix86_expand_split_stack_prologue (void)
{
rtx rax;
- rax = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, AX_REG);
- emit_move_insn (rax, reg10);
+ rax = gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, AX_REG);
+ emit_move_insn
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:53 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
and compiler does generate the same output. i386.c also has
xasm = jmp\t%A0;
xasm = call\t%A0;
for calls. There are no separate indirect call patterns. For x32,
only indirect register calls have to be in DImode.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:19 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
The current x32 implementation uses LEAs to convert 32bit address to
64bit. However, we can use addr32 prefix to use 32bit address directly.
It improves
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:19 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
The current x32 implementation uses LEAs to convert 32bit address to
64bit. However, we can use addr32 prefix to use 32bit address directly.
It improves performance by 5% in SPEC CPU 2K/2006. All changes are done
in x86
Hi,
The current x32 implementation uses LEAs to convert 32bit address to
64bit. However, we can use addr32 prefix to use 32bit address directly.
It improves performance by 5% in SPEC CPU 2K/2006. All changes are done
in x86 backend, except for a smaill unwind library assert change:
19 matches
Mail list logo
