On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch is an attempt at the rou
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 04:33:07AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> You are right. reflect test took a long time to compile.
>> It has nothing to with LRA.
>
> About the nothing to do with LRA I'm not sure, because on Tuesday my
> make -j48 -k check
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 04:33:07AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> You are right. reflect test took a long time to compile.
> It has nothing to with LRA.
About the nothing to do with LRA I'm not sure, because on Tuesday my
make -j48 -k check (slowish 16way box, yes,rtl checking) took just 30
minutes and
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> Sorry HJ, I got your message just after committing.
>>
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> Please try your patch on Linux/ia32 with go enabled. There is
>>> one go test which runs for a long time:
>>>
>>> 8149 hjl
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Sorry HJ, I got your message just after committing.
>
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> Please try your patch on Linux/ia32 with go enabled. There is
>> one go test which runs for a long time:
>>
>> 8149 hjl 20 0 49388 40m 9.8m R 99.3 0.3 15:18.35 go1
>>
>> and it is
Sorry HJ, I got your message just after committing.
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> Please try your patch on Linux/ia32 with go enabled. There is
> one go test which runs for a long time:
>
> 8149 hjl 20 0 49388 40m 9.8m R 99.3 0.3 15:18.35 go1
>
> and it is still running.
Are you sure this new?
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> I am thinking that pseudo assignment (reg_renumber) could be used to
> differ base and index registers too. Although I am not sure it is worth
> to do as it creates strange dependencies and that it can help probably
> in very rare cases or only for some weird targets
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch is an attempt at the rou
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrote:
This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
On 12-10-25 11:04 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 12-10-25 3:57 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
It is ok for me to commit the patch. I have no power to approve
changes for files outside LRA although I think the place is not
important for approval as LRA now only use it and with the point of
LRA
On 12-10-25 3:57 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
on top of the patches I sent out earlier today. To summarise
that mess
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
>>>
>>> for decomposing ad
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
>>
>> for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
>> on top of the patches
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
>
> for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
> on top of the patches I sent out earlier today. T
From: Richard Sandiford
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:57:05 +0100
> I'm hoping this will help with the x32 problems that HJ is seeing.
> Like Vlad, I don't have a set-up to try for certain, but I tried
> compiling a set of non-x32 gcc .ii files with -mx32 -maddress-mode=long
> and it fixed all but on
This patch is an attempt at the routine sketched here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01016.html
for decomposing addresses into constituent parts. It applies
on top of the patches I sent out earlier today. To summarise
that message, the main point is to have an address descrip
16 matches
Mail list logo
