On 04/15/2016 10:20 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
This was resolved with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00724.html
Sorry, I should have replied to this thread...
No worries. I probably should have checked the testcase before replying
to the older email thread.
jeff
On 15/04/16 17:18, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/15/2016 05:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 05/04/16 23:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this
patch we
perform shrink-wrapping:
On 04/15/2016 05:06 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
On 05/04/16 23:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this
patch we
perform shrink-wrapping:
cmpr0, #0
bxeqlr
On 05/04/16 23:35, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this patch we
perform shrink-wrapping:
cmpr0, #0
bxeqlr
push{r4, lr}
movr4, r0
...
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 10:48:58AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> So for the test gcc.dg/pr10474.c on arm with -marm -O3 before this patch we
> perform shrink-wrapping:
> cmpr0, #0
> bxeqlr
> push{r4, lr}
> movr4, r0
> ...
>
> And after the patch we don't:
>
Hi all,
On 01/04/16 21:43, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:26:41PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I've noticed that after this patch, 2 tests regress (PASS -> FAIL) on arm:
gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue
"Performing shrink-wrapping"
gcc.dg/pr
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:26:41PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> >I've noticed that after this patch, 2 tests regress (PASS -> FAIL) on arm:
> > gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-2.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue
> >"Performing shrink-wrapping"
> > gcc.dg/pr10474.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue "
On 03/30/2016 05:23 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 29 March 2016 at 18:28, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following patch improves the code in 2 out of 3 cases in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
The patch uses more accurate costs for the RA cost improvement
optimization a
On 03/30/2016 05:23 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 29 March 2016 at 18:28, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
The following patch improves the code in 2 out of 3 cases in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
The patch uses more accurate costs for the RA cost improvement
optimization a
On 29 March 2016 at 18:28, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> The following patch improves the code in 2 out of 3 cases in
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
>
> The patch uses more accurate costs for the RA cost improvement
> optimization after colouring.
>
> The patch was tested
The following patch improves the code in 2 out of 3 cases in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68695
The patch uses more accurate costs for the RA cost improvement
optimization after colouring.
The patch was tested and bootstrapped on x86-64. It is hard to
create a test to
11 matches
Mail list logo
