Swing-ul exista de pe vremea romanilor si a intrat in istorie sub denumirea de
Orgiile Romane. De-a lungul timpului a luat diferite denumiri si infatisari, in
anii 60 se numea wife-swapping â schimb de nevasta si era mai mult controlat
de catre barbatul care opta pentru a negocia schimbul neve
Hi,
I am having a size optimisation issue with GCC-4.6.1.
The problem boils down to the fact that I have no idea on the best way
to hint to GCC that a given insn would make more sense someplace else.
The C code is simple:
int16_t mask(uint32_t a)
{
return (x & a) == a;
}
int16_t is QImode
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am having a size optimisation issue with GCC-4.6.1.
> The problem boils down to the fact that I have no idea on the best way to
> hint to GCC that a given insn would make more sense someplace else.
>
> The C code is simple:
> int1
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Paulo J. Matos
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am having a size optimisation issue with GCC-4.6.1.
>> The problem boils down to the fact that I have no idea on the best way to
>> hint to GCC that a given insn wo
On 10/08/11 12:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
On x86 we expand the code to ((xl& al) ^ al) | ((xh& ah) ^ ah) == 0
which is then if-converted. Modified testcase:
long long x;
_Bool __attribute__((regparm(2))) mask (long long a)
{
return (x& a) == a;
}
on i?86 gets you
mask:
.LFB0:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 10/08/11 12:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On x86 we expand the code to ((xl& al) ^ al) | ((xh& ah) ^ ah) == 0
>> which is then if-converted. Modified testcase:
>>
>> long long x;
>> _Bool __attribute__((regparm(2))) mask (long long
On 10/08/11 12:42, Richard Guenther wrote:
Oh, and I wonder if/why IRA can/does not rematerialize the constant
instead of spilling it. Might be a cost issue that it doesn't delay
allocating a reg for 1 as that is cheap to reload (is it?).
I would indeed expect IRA to move the constant assign
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
>
>> Thanks, it works.
>
> OK, thanks for testing!
>
>> std Y+2,r31 ; 30 *movphi/3 [length = 7]
>> std Y+1,r30
>
> I'm actually not seeing those (maybe I'm using a different code
> base than you were using ...)
>
> But I st
On 10/08/11 14:51, Richard Guenther wrote:
I think it's all happening in generic code via do_store_flag.
ah, now I understand your previous question. I wonder if it's not
triggered because I don't have cstore4 defined. Might be that but
I have to look deeper.
--
PMatos
Hello,
I appriciate explanation regarding the following piece of code in
sched_analyze_insn function (sched-deps.c): When handling jump instruction
dependence edges are created between the jump instruction and memory
writes and volatile reads and I'm not quite sure the reason why.
Thanks,
Revital
Revital Eres writes:
> I appriciate explanation regarding the following piece of code in
> sched_analyze_insn function (sched-deps.c): When handling jump instruction
> dependence edges are created between the jump instruction and memory
> writes and volatile reads and I'm not quite sure the reaso
Hello,
>> I appriciate explanation regarding the following piece of code in
>> sched_analyze_insn function (sched-deps.c): When handling jump instruction
>> dependence edges are created between the jump instruction and memory
>> writes and volatile reads and I'm not quite sure the reason why.
>
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
