https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #18 from Sebastian Huber ---
clang 11 produces this code for the attached test case:
clang -O2 -S -o - pr50883.c -target arm
clang-11.0: warning: unknown platform, assuming -mfloat-abi=soft
clang-11.0: warning: unknown platform, ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Even if the performance impact is low, it does matter when optimizing for
> size.
Worth addressing for sure, but IMO not at expense of exposing calling
conventions and other low-level stuff in GIMPLE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw ---
And there are also cases where we end up with dead stack slots which can't be
removed, so there's a stack size impact as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Even if the performance impact is low, it does matter when optimizing for size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But no, I don't remember any case from SPEC where it makes a difference
> in the end. Judging from the amount of duplicates we get around
> parameter / return issues people do run into this.
Yes, but I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #9)
> > Part of the problem here is that the gimple expansion does not see the
> > argument unpacking or understand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #9)
> Part of the problem here is that the gimple expansion does not see the
> argument unpacking or understand how the parameters are passed; so this is
> only exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I've seen things like this with other structures passed as parameters.
Part of the problem here is that the gimple expansion does not see the argument
unpacking or understand how the parameters are passed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||palchak at google dot com
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 15:19:57 UTC ---
If we look at the function f (the function g is similar):
struct s {
int alignment;
unsigned char a;
unsigned char b;
unsigned char c;
unsigned char d;
};
unsigned f(stru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 11:55:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 25629
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25629
ARM assembler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 11:54:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 25628
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25628
Sample code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Huber
2011-10-27 11:55:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25630
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25630
PowerPC assembler.
18 matches
Mail list logo
