On 19/10/16 17:06, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 10/19/16 12:44, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 19 October 2016 at 10:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
On 10/18/
On 10/19/16 12:44, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 10:34, Kyrill Tkachov
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon
>>> wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>
> On 10/18
On 19 October 2016 at 10:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger
>>> wrote:
On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> I am seeing
On 19/10/16 07:55, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
I am seeing a lot of regressions since this patch was committed:
http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.ly
On 18 October 2016 at 17:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>
>>> I am seeing a lot of regressions since this patch was committed:
>>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/2
On 18 October 2016 at 16:45, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> I am seeing a lot of regressions since this patch was committed:
>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/241273/report-build-info.html
>>
>> (you can click on "REGRE
On 10/18/16 10:36, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> I am seeing a lot of regressions since this patch was committed:
> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc/trunk/241273/report-build-info.html
>
> (you can click on "REGRESSED" to see the list of regressions, "sum"
> and "log" to
Hi,
On 17 October 2016 at 18:47, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 30/09/16 14:34, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> On 09/30/16 12:14, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
> we do have stack size testcases via usin
On 30/09/16 14:34, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 09/30/16 12:14, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Eric Botcazou wrote:
A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
Yes. good ide
On 09/30/16 12:14, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
>>> we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
>>
>> Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
>
> Yes. good idea. I was not aware that we
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
>> we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
>
>Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
Yes. good idea. I was not aware that we already have that kind of tests.
When trying to wr
> A comment before the SETs and a testcase would be nice. IIRC
> we do have stack size testcases via using -fstack-usage.
Or -Wstack-usage, which might be more appropriate here.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch mitigates the excessive stack usage on arm in code
> that does lots of int64 shift ops like sha512.
>
> It reduces the stack usage in that example from 4K to 2K while
> less than 0.5K would be expected.
>
> In all cases th
13 matches
Mail list logo