On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:09:34PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> And it's too late to do it after STV pass and therefore we disable it
>>> when stack is not properly aligned.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:09:34PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> And it's too late to do it after STV pass and therefore we disable it
>> when stack is not properly aligned. I think this argumentation goes in
>> a loop.
>
> This is a
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:09:34PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> And it's too late to do it after STV pass and therefore we disable it
> when stack is not properly aligned. I think this argumentation goes in
> a loop.
This is a P1 that needs to be fixed, so that we don't defer this forever,
w
2016-02-02 17:03 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 16:25 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> w
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:25 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> 2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
2016-02-02 16:25 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich
> w
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich
wrote:
> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
2016-02-02 16:14 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:46:26AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> So, is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02129.html
>> >> ok for trunk then (alone or with additional sorry, incremental or not?)?
>> >> I believe it does just that.
>>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wr
2016-02-02 16:06 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bi
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:46:26AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> So, is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02129.html
> >> ok for trunk then (alone or with additional sorry, incremental or not?)?
> >> I believe it does just that.
> >
> > This patch is WRONG.
> >
> > --
> > H.J.
>
> You will
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +01
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12
2016-02-02 15:46 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> The bottom line i
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> >> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the co
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> >> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
>> >> number for DImode or you can just turn off
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
> >> number for DImode or you can just turn off STV. My suggestion is
> >> to use my patch.
> >
> > Uros
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>>> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
>>> number for DImode or you can just turn off STV. My suggestion is
>>> to use my patch.
>>
>> Uros, any preferenc
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> The bottom line is ix86_minimum_alignment must return the correct
>> number for DImode or you can just turn off STV. My suggestion is
>> to use my patch.
>
> Uros, any preferences here? I mean, it is possible to use
> e.g. the ix86_opti
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:42:02AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> 2016-01-27 Jakub Jelinek
> >> Ilya Enkovich
> >>
> >> PR target/69454
> >> * config/i386/i386.c (convert_scalars_to_vector): Remove
> >> stack alignment fixes.
> >>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-01-28 9:00 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enko
2016-01-28 9:00 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> 2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
wrote:
> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>>> wrote:
On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich
>> wrote:
>>> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix8
2016-01-27 19:18 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>> > @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
>>> > opts->x_
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> > @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
>> > opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_VZEROUPPER;
>> >if
On 27 Jan 16:44, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
> > opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_VZEROUPPER;
> >if (!(opts_set->x_target_flags & MASK_STV))
> > opts->x_ta
2016-01-27 18:43 GMT+03:00 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently STV pass may require a stack realignment if any
>> transformation occurs to enable SSE registers spill/fill.
>> It appears it's invalid to increase stack alignment requirements
>> at
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently STV pass may require a stack realignment if any
> transformation occurs to enable SSE registers spill/fill.
> It appears it's invalid to increase stack alignment requirements
> at this point. Thus we have to either assume w
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:41PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> @@ -5453,6 +5443,11 @@ ix86_option_override_internal (bool main_args_p,
> opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_VZEROUPPER;
>if (!(opts_set->x_target_flags & MASK_STV))
> opts->x_target_flags |= MASK_STV;
> + /* Disable STV if -
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently STV pass may require a stack realignment if any
> transformation occurs to enable SSE registers spill/fill.
> It appears it's invalid to increase stack alignment requirements
> at this point. Thus we have to either assume w
32 matches
Mail list logo