On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 03:14:02PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that's up to the target maintainers to decide, maybe
-mno-nested-functions instead?
Is -mno-nested-functions or
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Does XLC have a similar switch whose name we can use?
The IBM XL compiler is discussing a similar feature, but it is not
implemented yet and does not have a formal command line option name.
- David
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
PowerPC
calls through function pointers (or virtual function). Most of the languages
on the PowerPC do not need the static chain being
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hum. Can't the compiler figure this our itself per-call-site? At least
the name of the command-line switch -m[no-]r11 is meaningless to me.
Points-to information should be able to tell you if the function pointer
points to a
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hum. Can't the compiler figure this our itself per-call-site? At least
the name of the command-line switch -m[no-]r11 is meaningless to me.
Points-to
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit
PowerPC
calls through function pointers (or virtual function).
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:59:36AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain
[...]
On Jul 7, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Michael Meissner
meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
I certainly can call the switch -mno-static-chain, which is perhaps more
meaningful (at least to us compiler folk, I'm not sure static chain means
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that's up to the target maintainers to decide, maybe
-mno-nested-functions instead?
Is -mno-nested-functions or -mno-nested-function-pointers too
C-centric or GCC-centric? I don't know what wording would
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:14 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that's up to the target maintainers to decide, maybe
-mno-nested-functions instead?
Is -mno-nested-functions or
This patch adds an option to not load the static chain (r11) for 64-bit PowerPC
calls through function pointers (or virtual function). Most of the languages
on the PowerPC do not need the static chain being loaded when called, and
adding this instruction can slow down code that calls very short
11 matches
Mail list logo
