On 05/04/2016 02:10 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Is this sufficient explanation, is it okay with the fprintf's fixed?
Yeah, I suppose. From looking at some of the examples I have here I
think there's still room for doubt whether all the alignment choices
make perfect sense, but it's probabl
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:53:42PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Looking at the outputs I see a number of jump to return replaced with
> plain return, which seems like an improvement. There are random changes
> in .p2align output:
> Do you have an explanation as to why this happens? (Testcase:
Hi Segher,
On 03/05/16 07:59, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This series teaches cfgcleanup how to optimize jumps and branches to and
around return statements, after which the shrink-wrap code doesn't have
to deal with it anymore. The simplified code also catches a few more
cases.
Tested on powerpc
On 05/03/2016 03:31 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
If not, are you set up to test arm in
any way? Ideally you'd want to run that as well.
Good plan. There is arm64 in the cfarm; I'll see if I can build 32-bit
as well.
Simulator testing should work, but if ppc exercises this code there's
prob
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:53:42PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >This series teaches cfgcleanup how to optimize jumps and branches to and
> >around return statements, after which the shrink-wrap code doesn't have
> >to deal with it anymore. The simplified code also catches a few more
> >cases.
>
On 05/03/2016 08:59 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This series teaches cfgcleanup how to optimize jumps and branches to and
around return statements, after which the shrink-wrap code doesn't have
to deal with it anymore. The simplified code also catches a few more
cases.
Tested on powerpc64-li
This series teaches cfgcleanup how to optimize jumps and branches to and
around return statements, after which the shrink-wrap code doesn't have
to deal with it anymore. The simplified code also catches a few more
cases.
Tested on powerpc64-linux (-m32 and -m64, all languages), and also on
x86_64
