Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2015-01-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 01/05/15 21:01, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Radovan Obradovic wrote: index eb37bfe..ddaf8e0 100644 --- a/gcc/toplev.c +++ b/gcc/toplev.c @@ -1605,6 +1612,11 @@ process_options (void) /* Save the current optimization options. */ optimization_default_node = build_

RE: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2015-01-05 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Radovan Obradovic wrote: > index eb37bfe..ddaf8e0 100644 > --- a/gcc/toplev.c > +++ b/gcc/toplev.c > @@ -1605,6 +1612,11 @@ process_options (void) >/* Save the current optimization options. */ >optimization_default_node = build_optimization_node (&global_options); >

RE: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2015-01-05 Thread Moore, Catherine
> -Original Message- > From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 12:07 PM > To: Moore, Catherine; Radovan Obradovic; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Petar Jovanovic > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active >

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2015-01-05 Thread Jeff Law
: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active Patch has been tested with DejaGnu gcc test suite on mips32r2 cross compiler and bootstrapped and tested on x86_64 native compiler. Thanks for finishing up the testing. Would you like me to check this in for you? Please do. My recollection

RE: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2015-01-05 Thread Moore, Catherine
___ > From: Jeff Law [l...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 1:18 PM > To: Radovan Obradovic; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Petar Jovanovic > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active > > On 11/14/14 10

RE: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-12-18 Thread Radovan Obradovic
@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Petar Jovanovic Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active On 11/14/14 10:10, Radovan Obradovic wrote: > Thank you for the quick reply. > >> Please repost after updating to test HAVE_prologue and >> HAVE_epilogue and adding a testcase. >

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-17 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/14/14 10:10, Radovan Obradovic wrote: Thank you for the quick reply. Please repost after updating to test HAVE_prologue and HAVE_epilogue and adding a testcase. I have managed to reproduce the problem on the small test case on mips32, but the test is architecture independent and should

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-14 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 11/13/14 15:59, Mike Stump wrote: >>> >>> The problem, since this is a hook now, one can’t just test ifdef >>> FUNCTION_PROLOGUE. >> Right, but we can test the existence of the expander via the HA

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-14 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/13/14 15:59, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> The problem, since this is a hook now, one can’t just test ifdef >> FUNCTION_PROLOGUE. > Right, but we can test the existence of the expander via the HAVE_xxx > interface. Which ones, HAVE_prologue?

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-14 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/13/14 15:59, Mike Stump wrote: The problem, since this is a hook now, one can’t just test ifdef FUNCTION_PROLOGUE. Right, but we can test the existence of the expander via the HAVE_xxx interface. What that can't test is the expander failing (via FAIL;). But the prologue/epilogue expand

RE: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-14 Thread Radovan Obradovic
Thank you for the quick reply. > Please repost after updating to test HAVE_prologue and HAVE_epilogue and > adding a testcase. I have managed to reproduce the problem on the small test case on mips32, but the test is architecture independent and should probably fail on many other ports without

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-13 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 13, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> We don’t support fprintf prologues anymore, they were removed years ago. > Did we ever get all the ports converted? Ah… sorry, I was wrong. We merely hookized it and the tm.h interface is gone. TARGET_ASM_FUNCTION_PROLOGUE and TARGET_ASM_FUNCTIO

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/13/14 15:14, Mike Stump wrote: On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jeff Law wrote: Presumably we can get the same kinds of problems with ports that don't emit prologues/epilogues as RTL? I use prologue/epilogue to emit rtl in my port. I’d like this optimization to kick on in my port, as we

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-13 Thread Mike Stump
On Nov 13, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > Presumably we can get the same kinds of problems with ports that don't emit > prologues/epilogues as RTL? I use prologue/epilogue to emit rtl in my port. I’d like this optimization to kick on in my port, as we do explain everything in rtl. I do w

Re: [PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/13/14 07:37, Radovan Obradovic wrote: A problem is detected with building Linux kernel on MIPS platform when both -fuse-caller-save and -pg options are present. The reason for this is that -fuse-caller-save relies on the analysis of RTL code, but when profiling is active (with -pg option)

[PATCH] Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active

2014-11-13 Thread Radovan Obradovic
A problem is detected with building Linux kernel on MIPS platform when both -fuse-caller-save and -pg options are present. The reason for this is that -fuse-caller-save relies on the analysis of RTL code, but when profiling is active (with -pg option) the code is instrumented by adding a call to m