On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
I think I need someone with appropriate write privileges to
agree with that, and to also give 48h for someone to fix the
problem. Sorry for not forthcoming on the second point.
brgds, H-P
PS. where is the policy written down, besides the
On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
* function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Guard
emitting return with single_succ_p test.
Ok.
r~
From: Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:51:56 +0100
On 11/11/11 20:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
AFAICT, your patch has got sufficiently testing now (on three
targets to boot) to be considered safe to check in. Or is
something amiss?
(If it's the
Someone with approval rights: pretty please?
Can I add my +1 pretty please as well here :) ? According to #c3
this fixes arm-linux-gnueabi cross-builds for C++ as well and
potentially allows this to bootstrap again. I have kicked off a
bootstrap and test run on arm-linux-gnueabi .
cheers
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana.radhakrish...@linaro.org writes:
Someone with approval rights: pretty please?
Can I add my +1 pretty please as well here :) ? According to #c3
this fixes arm-linux-gnueabi cross-builds for C++ as well and
potentially allows this to bootstrap again. I have kicked
On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Looks like all we need is a positive review of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01409.html and a
ChangeLog entry to unbreak three or more targets.
Someone with approval rights: pretty please?
That patch is ok.
r~
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:48:03AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Looks like all we need is a positive review of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01409.html and a
ChangeLog entry to unbreak three or more targets.
Someone
From: Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:48:03 +0100
On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Looks like all we need is a positive review of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01409.html and a
ChangeLog entry to unbreak three or more targets.
On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 07:48:03AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/14/2011 04:10 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Looks like all we need is a positive review of
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg01409.html and a
ChangeLog entry to
On 11/15/11 01:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
* function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Guard
emitting return with single_succ_p test.
Hmm. This looks plausible too.
Bernd's patch made sure that cfglayout didn't do something
From: Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:54:34 +0100
On 11/15/11 01:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
* function.c (thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns): Guard
emitting return with single_succ_p test.
Hmm. This looks
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:52:39 +0100
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:54 +0100
From: Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:29:04 +0100
HP, can you run full tests?
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100
From: Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
* function.c (bb_active_p): Delete.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100
From: Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:40 +0100
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra
From: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:55:59 +0100
From: Alan Modra
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:22:56 +0100
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
Fair enough. You can count me as one then, and I'll defer to Bernd
to either provide a fix or ack the revert.
I'm trying to track it down.
In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we have
(insn 31 33 35 3 (use (reg/i:SI 0 r0))
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson h...@axis.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:12:54 +0100
From: Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:29:04 +0100
HP, can you run full tests?
Cross-test to cris-elf in progress.
Thanks!
Works, no regressions compared to before the
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 02:29:04PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 11/10/11 13:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
Fair enough. You can count me as one then, and I'll defer to Bernd
to either provide a fix or ack the revert.
I'm trying to track it down.
In 189r.outof_cfglayout, we have
(insn
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 02:03:40AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
Bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc-linux. OK to apply?
(And I won't be posting any more versions of the patch until this is
reviewed. Please excuse me for spamming the list.)
Looks reasonable to me, appart from
*
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 12:57:22AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
Bits left to do
- limit size of duplicated tails
Done here. Also fixes a hole in that I took no notice of
targetm.cannot_copy_insn_p when duplicating tails.
One interesting result is that the tail duplication actually reduces
the
So I'm at the point where I'm reasonably happy with this work. This
patch doesn't do anything particularly clever regarding our
shrink-wrap implementation. We still only insert one copy of the
prologue, and one of the epilogue in thread_prologue_and_epilogue.
All it really does is replaces
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:24:46AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
more code than duplicating epilogues. From what I've seen, the
duplicate tails are generally very small. I guess I should dump out
some info so we can get a better idea.
There were 545 occurrences of shrink-wrap in the gcc/ dir for
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 02:51:01PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
The patch is okay, although I am not thrilled about the need to change
the register allocation order.
Committed revision 180522. It turns out that shrink-wrapping isn't as
effective as it used to be with the 20110915 based sources
On 10/26/11 14:27, Alan Modra wrote:
Committed revision 180522. It turns out that shrink-wrapping isn't as
effective as it used to be with the 20110915 based sources I was using
originally. povray Ray_In_Bound no longer gets the benefit of shrink
wrap, likely due to some cfg optimization.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:01:01PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/26/11 14:27, Alan Modra wrote:
Committed revision 180522. It turns out that shrink-wrapping isn't as
effective as it used to be with the 20110915 based sources I was using
originally. povray Ray_In_Bound no longer gets
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:59:36PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 10/26/11 15:54, Alan Modra wrote:
I guess the tradeoff between the classic shrink-wrap epilogue scheme
and my duplicate tail idea is whether duplicating tail blocks adds
more code than duplicating epilogues. From what I've
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote:
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_make_savres_rtx): Delete unneeded
declaration.
(rs6000_emit_stack_reset): Only return insn emitted when it adjusts sp.
(rs6000_make_savres_rtx): Rename to
This supercedes http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01004.html
and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01593.html, fixing
the two regressions introduced by those patches. The first patch is
unchanged except to leave all the out-of-line restore functions using
return rather than
This patch fixes an issue that limit opportunities for shrink-wrapping
on PowerPC. The rs6000 REG_ALLOC_ORDER chooses r0 as the very first
gpr to use in code, with r11 also having high priority. This means it
is quite likely that r0 or r11 is live on the edge chosen for
shrink-wrapping. That's
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code.
These two.
+FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C -O1 (internal compiler error)
+FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/pr46099.c (internal compiler error)
Both internal compiler error: in
On 09/27/11 00:32, Alan Modra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code.
These two.
+FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C -O1 (internal compiler error)
+FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/pr46099.c (internal compiler
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:39:36AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/27/11 00:32, Alan Modra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code.
These two.
+FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr46111.C -O1 (internal
On 09/27/11 02:11, Alan Modra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:39:36AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 09/27/11 00:32, Alan Modra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:22:54PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
Two regressions appeared due to a problem in the shrink-wrap code.
These two.
+FAIL:
Finally, the powerpc backend changes. These are mostly just
mechanical. I'll note that we need both simple_return and return
variants of the conditional returns because they can only be used when
no epilogue is required. The return variant must use
direct_return() as a predicate to check this
35 matches
Mail list logo
