Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-10-21 Thread James Greenhalgh
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 07:10:07PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > James Greenhalgh wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:38:36PM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > >> +  /* We need two add/sub instructions, each one perform part of the > >> + addition/subtraction, but don't this if the addend can

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-10-18 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
James Greenhalgh wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:38:36PM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: >> +  /* We need two add/sub instructions, each one perform part of the >> + addition/subtraction, but don't this if the addend can be loaded into >> + register by single instruction, in that case we pr

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-10-18 Thread James Greenhalgh
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:38:36PM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > ping > > > From: Wilco Dijkstra > Sent: 10 August 2016 17:20 > To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches > Cc: nd > Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment >   > Richard Earnsha

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-10-17 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 10 August 2016 17:20 To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches Cc: nd Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment   Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I see you've added a default argument for your new parameter.  I think > doing that is fine, but

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-09-21 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 23 August 2016 15:49 To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches Cc: nd Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment   ping     Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I see you've added a default argument for your new parameter.  I think > doing that is fine,

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-09-06 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
ping     Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I see you've added a default argument for your new parameter.  I think > doing that is fine, but I have two comments about how we might use that > in this case. > > Firstly, if this parameter is suitable for having a default value, then > I think the preceding

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-08-23 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
ping   Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I see you've added a default argument for your new parameter.  I think > doing that is fine, but I have two comments about how we might use that > in this case. > > Firstly, if this parameter is suitable for having a default value, then > I think the preceding o

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-08-10 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
Richard Earnshaw wrote: > I see you've added a default argument for your new parameter.  I think > doing that is fine, but I have two comments about how we might use that > in this case. > > Firstly, if this parameter is suitable for having a default value, then > I think the preceding one should

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-08-05 Thread Richard Earnshaw (lists)
On 04/08/16 16:56, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 04/08/16 12:06, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: >> Improve stack adjustment by reusing a temporary move immediate >> from the epilog if the register is still valid in the epilog. This generates >> smaller code for leaf functions: >> >> mov

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Improve stack adjustment

2016-08-04 Thread Richard Earnshaw (lists)
On 04/08/16 12:06, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Improve stack adjustment by reusing a temporary move immediate > from the epilog if the register is still valid in the epilog. This generates > smaller code for leaf functions: > > mov x16, 4 > sub sp, sp, x16 > ldr