David Miller writes:
> I started working on this patch again, in order to incorporate
> Richard Henderson's feedback, and I am now getting a comparison
> failure. Is this what you're seeing?
>
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o diff
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:50:49 +0100
>> Thanks for finding this, that's definitely incorrect behavior. I bet there
>> is some unintended override triggered by sparc4 selection, and I'll go and
>> fix that soon.
>
> You're welcome. That's the reason why I needed to go the A
> Thanks for finding this, that's definitely incorrect behavior. I bet there
> is some unintended override triggered by sparc4 selection, and I'll go and
> fix that soon.
You're welcome. That's the reason why I needed to go the ASM_ARCH way, the
straightforward approach would have put the -32/-
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:32:40 +0100
> Working on this, I discovered an oddity in GNU as: -xarch=sparc4 -64 yields a
> 64-bit object file whereas -64 -xarch=sparc4 yields a 32-bit object file. My
> understanding is that Sun as will generate a 64-bit object file in both cas
> We really need to start using the newer names, as Sun is not going to
> provide single letter indicators for sparc4 or future xarch values.
>
> In fact, that's exactly what needed to be worked on from the beginning
> for the solaris side of this cbcond patch. We're talking in circles.
OK, sorr
From: Rainer Orth
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:14:33 +0200
> I tried a bootstrap on Solaris 11.1, but ran into lots of comparison
> failures I've not yet investigated.
I started working on this patch again, in order to incorporate
Richard Henderson's feedback, and I am now getting a comparison
fail
From: Richard Henderson
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:56:21 -0800
> On 10/22/2012 08:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> + /* Compare and Branch is limited to +-2KB. If it is too far away,
>> + change
>> +
>> + cxbne X, Y, .LC30
>> +
>> + to
>> +
>> + cxbe X, Y, .+12
>> + ba,pt xcc, .
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:35:48 +0100
>> I strongly doubt that they will be different from the options
>> supported both in cc and fbe in the Solaris Studio 12.3 release:
>
> They need to provide some form of backward compatibility though, they cannot
> break the interface o
From: Rainer Orth
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:46:37 +0100
> Eric Botcazou writes:
>
>>> No, quite the contrary. as is just a (sometimes partial) backport of
>>> Studio fbe, though it's hard to tell exactly which Studio version of fbe
>>> forms the basis of as. Especially for the Solaris 10 as p
On 10/22/2012 08:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
> + /* Compare and Branch is limited to +-2KB. If it is too far away,
> + change
> +
> + cxbne X, Y, .LC30
> +
> + to
> +
> + cxbe X, Y, .+12
> + ba,pt xcc, .LC30
> + nop */
Based on your no-control-after cbcond comment at the
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> No, quite the contrary. as is just a (sometimes partial) backport of
>> Studio fbe, though it's hard to tell exactly which Studio version of fbe
>> forms the basis of as. Especially for the Solaris 10 as patches, only
>> particular bugfixes/enhancements have been backpo
> No, quite the contrary. as is just a (sometimes partial) backport of
> Studio fbe, though it's hard to tell exactly which Studio version of fbe
> forms the basis of as. Especially for the Solaris 10 as patches, only
> particular bugfixes/enhancements have been backported.
>
> Backward compatib
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> I strongly doubt that they will be different from the options
>> supported both in cc and fbe in the Solaris Studio 12.3 release:
>
> They need to provide some form of backward compatibility though, they cannot
> break the interface of 'as' like that. Apparently 'fbe' h
> I strongly doubt that they will be different from the options
> supported both in cc and fbe in the Solaris Studio 12.3 release:
They need to provide some form of backward compatibility though, they cannot
break the interface of 'as' like that. Apparently 'fbe' has had its own set
of -xarch v
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:28:38 +0100
>> Eric and Rainer, I think that functionally this patch is fully ready
>> to go into the tree except for the Solaris aspects which I do not have
>> the means to work on. Have either of you made any progress in this
>> area?
>
> Rainer,
> Eric and Rainer, I think that functionally this patch is fully ready
> to go into the tree except for the Solaris aspects which I do not have
> the means to work on. Have either of you made any progress in this
> area?
Rainer, could you post an excerpt of the man page of a recent 'as' supportin
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:57 +0200
>> @@ -1088,7 +1093,12 @@ sparc_option_override (void)
>>if (TARGET_VIS3)
>> target_flags |= MASK_VIS2 | MASK_VIS;
>>
>> - /* Don't allow -mvis, -mvis2, -mvis3, or -mfmaf if FPU is disabled. */
>> + /* -mcbcond implies -mvis3, -m
David Miller writes:
>> Eric and Rainer, I think that functionally this patch is fully ready
>> to go into the tree except for the Solaris aspects which I do not have
>> the means to work on. Have either of you made any progress in this
>> area?
>
> Just wondering if either of you have had a cha
> Eric and Rainer, I think that functionally this patch is fully ready
> to go into the tree except for the Solaris aspects which I do not have
> the means to work on. Have either of you made any progress in this
> area?
Not yet, but I'll have a look at the beginning of next week.
Some remarks:
From: David Miller
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
> Eric and Rainer, I think that functionally this patch is fully ready
> to go into the tree except for the Solaris aspects which I do not have
> the means to work on. Have either of you made any progress in this
> area?
Just wonder
Differences from v2:
1) If another control transfer comes right after a cbcond we take
an enormous performance penalty, some 20 cycles or more. The
documentation specifically warns about this, so emit a nop when
we encounter this scenerio.
2) Add a heuristic to avoid using cbcond if we
21 matches
Mail list logo
