Hi Jeff,
On 12/05/15 23:04, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/11/2015 03:28 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I think it's an ugly can of
worms and maybe we should just disable sibcalls for partial
arguments. I doubt it's a big performance issue in general.
We already have
On 05/11/2015 03:28 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I think it's an ugly can of
worms and maybe we should just disable sibcalls for partial
arguments. I doubt it's a big performance issue in general.
We already have quite a bit of code in calls.c to detect cases
On 01/05/15 19:51, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/28/2015 03:54 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 27/04/15 21:13, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 11:33 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it s
On 2015-04-27 9:16 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
Hi Dave,
Would it be possible for you to test this patch on a 64-bit hppa
or at least bootstrap it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01288.html
I started a build and test with your patch on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 this
morning.
The patc
On 04/28/2015 03:54 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 27/04/15 21:13, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 11:33 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we
don't
pass argumen
On 28/04/15 10:54, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 27/04/15 21:13, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 11:33 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we don't
pass arguments p
On 27/04/15 21:13, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 11:33 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we don't
pass arguments partially in stormy16, so this code would ne
On 04/21/2015 11:33 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we don't
pass arguments partially in stormy16, so this code would never be called
there. That leaves pa a
On 2015-04-27 6:12 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 22/04/15 12:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 18:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we
don't
pass argume
On 22/04/15 12:51, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 18:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we don't
pass arguments partially in stormy16, so this code would
On 21/04/15 18:33, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we don't
pass arguments partially in stormy16, so this code would never be called
there. That leaves pa as th
On 21/04/15 15:09, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we don't
pass arguments partially in stormy16, so this code would never be called
there. That leaves pa as the potential problematic target.
I don't sup
On 04/21/2015 02:30 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
From reading config/stormy16/stormy-abi it seems to me that we don't
pass arguments partially in stormy16, so this code would never be called
there. That leaves pa as the potential problematic target.
I don't suppose there's an easy way to test on p
On 20/04/15 19:02, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/20/2015 02:25 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Hmmm, so what happens if the difference is < 0? I'd be a bit worried
about that case for the PA (for example).
So how about asserting that the INTVAL is >= 0 prior to returning so
that we catch that ca
On 04/20/2015 02:25 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Hmmm, so what happens if the difference is < 0? I'd be a bit worried
about that case for the PA (for example).
So how about asserting that the INTVAL is >= 0 prior to returning so
that we catch that case if it ever occurs?
INTVAL being
Hi Jeff,
On 17/04/15 18:26, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/19/2015 08:39 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch fixes PR 65358. For details look at the excellent write-up
by Honggyu in bugzilla. The problem is that we're trying to pass a struct
partially on the stack and partially in regs during
On 03/19/2015 08:39 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch fixes PR 65358. For details look at the excellent write-up
by Honggyu in bugzilla. The problem is that we're trying to pass a struct
partially on the stack and partially in regs during a tail-call
optimisation
but the struct we're
On 04/13/2015 08:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01014.html
Jeff, could you help review this patch?
Or could you point me to someone who can review this?
I can't figure out from MAINTAINERS who should be in charge of this part
of the compiler.
It'
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01014.html
Jeff, could you help review this patch?
Or could you point me to someone who can review this?
I can't figure out from MAINTAINERS who should be in charge of this part of the
compiler.
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 19/03/15 14:39, Kyrill Tkacho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 02:39:11PM +, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch fixes PR 65358. For details look at the excellent write-up
> by Honggyu in bugzilla. The problem is that we're trying to pass a struct
> partially on the stack and partially in regs during a tail-call optimisa
Ping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01014.html
Thanks,
Kyrill
On 19/03/15 14:39, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
This patch fixes PR 65358. For details look at the excellent write-up
by Honggyu in bugzilla. The problem is that we're trying to pass a struct
partially on the stack a
Hi all,
This patch fixes PR 65358. For details look at the excellent write-up
by Honggyu in bugzilla. The problem is that we're trying to pass a struct
partially on the stack and partially in regs during a tail-call optimisation
but the struct we're passing is also a partial incoming arg though t
22 matches
Mail list logo
