SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
I've add pages comparing LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC 4.8 on http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/. The pages are accessible by links named GCC-LLVM comparison, 2013, x86 and x86-64 SPEC2000 under link named 2013. You can find these links at the bottom of the left frame. If you prefer email for

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > I've add pages comparing LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC 4.8 on > http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/. > > The pages are accessible by links named GCC-LLVM comparison, 2013, x86 and > x86-64 SPEC2000 under link named 2013. You can find these lin

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 02/07/2013 11:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: I've add pages comparing LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC 4.8 on http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/. The pages are accessible by links named GCC-LLVM comparison, 2013, x86 and x86-64 SPEC2000 under

Re: var-tracking wrt. leaf regs on sparc

2013-02-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 03:18:27PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Botcazou > Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:13:30 +0100 > > > I think testing crtl->uses_only_leaf_regs is sufficient here (and > > while you're at it, you could also test the value of > > HAVE_window_save, which can be 0 if -mfl

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread David Edelsohn
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > Also note that for SPEC -funroll-loops helps GCC (yes ... we don't > enable that by default at -O3, we probably should). Richi, Are you suggesting enabling -funroll-loops by default at -O3? When I checked earlier this year, GCC was too a

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:28 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: > >> Also note that for SPEC -funroll-loops helps GCC (yes ... we don't >> enable that by default at -O3, we probably should). > > Richi, > > Are you suggesting enabling -funroll-loops

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Duncan Sands
Hi Vladimir, thanks for these numbers. ... Therefore I had to use *Dragonegg* (a GCC plugin which uses LLVM backend instead of GCC backend) for generation of Fortran benchmarks by LLVM. ... I believe such progress is achieved mostly because of a *new RA* introduced in LLVM 3.0 a

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:28 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >> >>> Also note that for SPEC -funroll-loops helps GCC (yes ... we don't >>> enable that by default at -O3, we probably s

Re: var-tracking wrt. leaf regs on sparc

2013-02-07 Thread David Miller
From: Jakub Jelinek Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:22:32 +0100 > Then supposedly somewhere in dwarf2out we do some adjustment, > but still end up with d/e loclist of: > .LLST2: > .uaxword.LVL0-.Ltext0 ! Location list begin address > (*.LLST2) > .uaxword.LVL1-.Ltext0

Re: var-tracking wrt. leaf regs on sparc

2013-02-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:38:18PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > The fix for this is trivial, just a missing leaf renumbering in dwarf2out.c: > > diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c > index 06cfb18..765d5c5 100644 > --- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c > +++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c > @@ -10864,7 +10864,16 @@

Re: var-tracking wrt. leaf regs on sparc

2013-02-07 Thread David Miller
From: David Miller Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:38:18 -0500 (EST) > From: Jakub Jelinek > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:22:32 +0100 > >> Then supposedly somewhere in dwarf2out we do some adjustment, >> but still end up with d/e loclist of: >> .LLST2: >> .uaxword.LVL0-.Ltext0 ! Locatio

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Jack Howarth
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:51:20PM +0100, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Vladimir, thanks for these numbers. > > ... >>Therefore I had to use *Dragonegg* (a GCC plugin which uses LLVM >>backend instead of GCC backend) for generation of Fortran benchmarks >>by LLVM. > ... >>I believe such

Re: SPEC2000 comparison of LLVM-3.2 and coming GCC4.8 on x86/x86-64

2013-02-07 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 02/07/2013 01:51 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: Hi Vladimir, thanks for these numbers. ... Therefore I had to use *Dragonegg* (a GCC plugin which uses LLVM backend instead of GCC backend) for generation of Fortran benchmarks by LLVM. ... I believe such progress is achieved mostly beca

Re: var-tracking wrt. leaf regs on sparc

2013-02-07 Thread David Miller
From: Jakub Jelinek Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 20:43:32 +0100 > This and earlier patch are ok, if it bootstraps/regtests fine, and suitable > ChangeLog entry is provided. > Running gdb testsuite before and after wouldn't hurt though. I've done all of this, and committed to trunk and the gcc-4.7 branc

Auxilio Tengo un Socio

2013-02-07 Thread Lic. Areliz Massanges
¡No deje que la lucha de egos y roles interfieran con sus intereses! Aprenda las inigualables ventajas de cimentar sus relaciones profesionales. ¡AUXILIO! TENGO UN ¡SOCIO! ¿Dónde se llevará a cabo? Lugar: Su computadora. Fecha: 11 de Marzo de 2013. Duración: 3 Horas. Horario: De 10:00 a.m a 1:0

Marking nodes as addressable

2013-02-07 Thread Matt Davis
I have a GIMPLE_CALL statement and I want to mark the left-hand-side value as being addressable (mark_addressable()). I am trying to force the result to be stored on the stack, and not in a register. I know the return of a call on an 64bit x86 is passed back to the caller in the rax register. I