On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:10:04AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> I got a feedback, suggesting __builtin_stack_top, instead of
>>> __builtin_ia32_stack_top. But I don't know if
>>>
>>> +
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:10:04AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I got a feedback, suggesting __builtin_stack_top, instead of
>> __builtin_ia32_stack_top. But I don't know if
>>
>> + /* After the prologue, stack top is at -WORD(AP) in t
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:10:04AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I got a feedback, suggesting __builtin_stack_top, instead of
> __builtin_ia32_stack_top. But I don't know if
>
> + /* After the prologue, stack top is at -WORD(AP) in the current
> +frame. */
> + emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> When __builtin_frame_address is used to retrieve the address of the
> function stack frame, the frame pointer is always kept, which wastes one
> register and 2 instructions. For x86-32, one less register means
> significant negative impact on perf
When __builtin_frame_address is used to retrieve the address of the
function stack frame, the frame pointer is always kept, which wastes one
register and 2 instructions. For x86-32, one less register means
significant negative impact on performance. This patch adds a new
builtin function, __built
