Not that getting the terminology right isn't important, but it would be
nice if Segher could get a review for the rest of the content, too. :)
Bill
> On Jul 8, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:16:03AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>> As far as I unders
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:16:03AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> As far as I understand the idea, there are a number of target-specific
> things that are to be done during a function call, and the optimization
> tries to detect which of optimize each of these separately.
>
> Some synonyms and near
On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 07:11 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:42:34PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 06/14/2016 11:24 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 06:43:23PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > > On 06/08/2016 05:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:42:34PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/14/2016 11:24 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 06:43:23PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>On 06/08/2016 05:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>There is no standard naming for this as far as I know. I'l
On 06/14/2016 11:24 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 06:43:23PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 06/08/2016 05:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
There is no standard naming for this as far as I know. I'll gladly
use a better name anyone comes up with.
Maybe just subpart?
Ping.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 06:51:01PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:47:31AM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > This patch series introduces separate shrink-wrapping.
> >
> > There are many things the prologue/epilogue of a function do, and most of
>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 06:16:10PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 01:03:17AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 06/08/2016 07:26 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >One thing I should try is put a USE of the saved registers at such
> > >exits, maybe that helps those passe
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 01:03:17AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/08/2016 07:26 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >One thing I should try is put a USE of the saved registers at such
> >exits, maybe that helps those passes that now delete frame restores
> >to not do that.
>
> Have you had a chan
On 06/08/2016 07:26 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
One thing I should try is put a USE of the saved registers at such
exits, maybe that helps those passes that now delete frame restores
to not do that.
Have you had a chance to try this?
Bernd
Ping.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:47:31AM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> This patch series introduces separate shrink-wrapping.
>
> There are many things the prologue/epilogue of a function do, and most of
> those things can be done independently. For example, most of the time,
> for many tar
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 06:43:23PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/08/2016 05:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >There is no standard naming for this as far as I know. I'll gladly
> >use a better name anyone comes up with.
>
> Maybe just subpart?
How about "factor"?
Segher
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:12:53AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> I'm going to largely let Bernd own the review on this. Just a few comments.
>
> I certainly like the concept. My mental model is that parts of the
> prologue might sink further than other parts of the prologue. It's not
> an exact ma
On 06/07/2016 07:47 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This patch series introduces separate shrink-wrapping.
There are many things the prologue/epilogue of a function do, and most of
those things can be done independently. For example, most of the time,
for many targets, the save of callee-saved re
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 06:43:23PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/08/2016 05:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On the plus side I should have caught most of it now. And the failures
> >are rarely silent, they show up during compilation already.
>
> That does count as a plus. Aborts in dwar
On 06/08/2016 05:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On the plus side I should have caught most of it now. And the failures
are rarely silent, they show up during compilation already.
That does count as a plus. Aborts in dwarf2cfi, I assume.
Most of the problems are code changes the later passe
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:55:55PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/08/2016 03:47 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >This patch series introduces separate shrink-wrapping.
> [...]
> >The next six patches are to prevent later passes from mishandling the
> >epilogue instructions that now appear befo
> Is the usage of the word "concern" here standard for this kind of thing?
> It seems odd somehow but maybe that's just me.
No, I find it quite odd too.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 06/08/2016 03:47 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
This patch series introduces separate shrink-wrapping.
[...]
The next six patches are to prevent later passes from mishandling the
epilogue instructions that now appear before the epilogue: mostly, you
cannot do much to instructions with a REG_C
18 matches
Mail list logo
