On 10/08/16 17:31, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> OK. But please enhance the comment with some explanation as to WHY
>> you've chosen to use just two base pairings rather than separate bases
>> for each access size.
>
> OK here is the updated patch which also handles unaligned
ping
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> OK. But please enhance the comment with some explanation as to WHY
> you've chosen to use just two base pairings rather than separate bases
> for each access size.
OK here is the updated patch which also handles unaligned accesses
which further improves the ben
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> OK. But please enhance the comment with some explanation as to WHY
> you've chosen to use just two base pairings rather than separate bases
> for each access size.
OK here is the updated patch which also handles unaligned accesses
which further improves the benefit:
Thi
On 04/08/16 12:00, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> This patch adds legitimize_address_displacement hook so that stack accesses
> with large offsets are split into a more efficient sequence. Byte and
> halfword
> accesses use a 4KB range, wider accesses use a 16KB range to maximise the
> available address
This patch adds legitimize_address_displacement hook so that stack accesses
with large offsets are split into a more efficient sequence. Byte and halfword
accesses use a 4KB range, wider accesses use a 16KB range to maximise the
available addressing range and increase opportunities to share the ba
