On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 04:26:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 03:35 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >What do we do now with the two patches? At the moment, the
> >functional patch depends on the changes in the cleanup patch, so
> >it cannot be applied on its own. Options:
> >
> >(with the r
On 06/21/2016 03:35 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
What do we do now with the two patches? At the moment, the
functional patch depends on the changes in the cleanup patch, so
it cannot be applied on its own. Options:
(with the requested cleanup in the functional patch)
1) Apply both patches as they
What do we do now with the two patches? At the moment, the
functional patch depends on the changes in the cleanup patch, so
it cannot be applied on its own. Options:
(with the requested cleanup in the functional patch)
1) Apply both patches as they are now and do further cleanup on
top of
On 05/20/2016 01:11 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
Let's start with clean up of dead code:
/* We will need to ensure that the address we return is aligned to
REQUIRED_ALIGN. If STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET is defined, we don't
always know its final value at this point in the compilation (it
might
On 05/03/2016 08:17 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Version two of the patch including a test case.
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:10:25AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/29/2016 04:12 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
The attached patch removes excess stack space allocation with
alloca in some situations. Plese chec
f568c958232 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 08:36:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Drop excess size used for run time allocated stack
variables.
The present calculation sometimes led to more stack memory being used than
necessary with alloca. First, (STACK_BOUNDARY -1)
On 04/29/2016 04:12 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
The attached patch removes excess stack space allocation with
alloca in some situations. Plese check the commit message in the
patch for details.
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
-- Dominik Vogt IBM Germany
0001-ChangeLog
gcc/ChangeLog
* explow.c
> static rtx
> -round_push (rtx size)
> +round_push (rtx size, int already_added)
round_push also needs to know about the required alignment in case
that is more strict than a simple stack slot alignment.
> {
> - rtx align_rtx, alignm1_rtx;
> + rtx align_rtx, add_rtx;
>
>if (!SUPPORTS_S
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:44:01AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > The attached patch removes excess stack space allocation with
> > alloca in some situations. Plese check the commit message in the
> > patch for details.
>
> This might fix PR middle-end/50938.
This certainly looks like what I wa
> The attached patch removes excess stack space allocation with
> alloca in some situations. Plese check the commit message in the
> patch for details.
This might fix PR middle-end/50938.
--
Eric Botcazou
P.S.: Bootstrapped and regression tested on s390, s390x and
x86_64.
--
I'm not sure whether something has to be done about the else
branch in round_push too:
else
{
/* If crtl->preferred_stack_boundary might still grow, use
virtual_preferred_stack_boundary_rtx instead.
.
(allocate_dynamic_stack_space): Pass known adjustment to round_push.
>From 9ea451aef0f1f2fb0a36a7b718f910cfe285541d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 08:36:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Drop excess size used for run time allocated stack
variables.
The present calculation sometimes
12 matches
Mail list logo
