On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:01:06PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> There's one thing I don't quite understand and which seems to have
> changed since v1:
>
> On 07/04/2016 02:19 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >@@ -1099,8 +1101,10 @@ expand_stack_vars (bool (*pred) (size_t), struct
> >stack_vars_data *da
There's one thing I don't quite understand and which seems to have
changed since v1:
On 07/04/2016 02:19 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
@@ -1099,8 +1101,10 @@ expand_stack_vars (bool (*pred) (size_t), struct
stack_vars_data *data)
/* If there were any, allocate space. */
if (large_siz
On 07/04/2016 02:19 PM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Version 4 with the following change:
>
> * Rebased on top of the "Minor cleanup to
>allocate_dynamic_stack_space" patch. The "Drop excess size
>used for run time allocated stack variables." path needs an
>update because it touches the dsa
Version 4 with the following change:
* Rebased on top of the "Minor cleanup to
allocate_dynamic_stack_space" patch. The "Drop excess size
used for run time allocated stack variables." path needs an
update because it touches the dsame code as the patch in this
message.
Ran the testsu
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 04:48:14PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Third version of the patch. Changes:
>
> * Corrected a typo in a test case comment.
> * Verify that stack variable alignment does not force the frame
>pointer into existence (with -fomit-frame-pointer)
>
> The test should hope
Third version of the patch. Changes:
* Corrected a typo in a test case comment.
* Verify that stack variable alignment does not force the frame
pointer into existence (with -fomit-frame-pointer)
The test should hopefully run on all targets. Tested on s390,
s390x biarch, x86_64. The only o
On 05/06/2016 03:44 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
index 21f21c9..4d48afd 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
...
@@ -1099,8 +1101,10 @@ expand_stack_vars (bool (*pred) (size_t), struct
stack_vars_data *data)
/* If there were any,
On 05/06/2016 03:37 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
Updated version of the patch described below. Apart from fixing a
bug and adding a test, the new logic is now used always, for all
targets. The discussion of the original patch starts here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg03052.html
Th
> diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
> index 21f21c9..4d48afd 100644
> --- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
> +++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
...
> @@ -1099,8 +1101,10 @@ expand_stack_vars (bool (*pred) (size_t), struct
> stack_vars_data *data)
>
>/* If there were any, allocate space. */
>if
Updated version of the patch described below. Apart from fixing a
bug and adding a test, the new logic is now used always, for all
targets. The discussion of the original patch starts here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg03052.html
The new patch has been bootstrapped and regressi
10 matches
Mail list logo
