>For example, is the pic register saved and restored? Yes, if RA decided that it is better to save it.
>If restored, is the code to save it actually better than simply appearing it >out of thin air as did previously? "enabling ebx" gives performance mostly to loops. There still could be some performance issues, however we got pretty good results on a set of benchmarks: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00892.html To get performance diff now you can compare r216153 svn revision and r216304 with the patch in 63534#c33 There was quite long discussion on enabling starting here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg02186.html On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 17, 2014, at 7:08 AM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The patch fixes 1st fail in darwin bootstarp. >> When PIC register is pseudo we don't need to init it after setjmp or >> non local goto. >> >> Is it ok? > > So, I don’t see commentary in the PR that all fallout and all bugs introduced > are fixed by the patch. :-( > > Given how central pic is to code-gen, I don’t favor any patch, until all bugs > and regressions are fixed. If they can’t be, then I favor reversion of the > patch that broke everything. > > Additionally, if given the types of changes to codegen, I’d like to see the > before and after changes to try and ensure that code-gen quality isn’t > regressed. For example, is the pic register saved and restored? If > restored, is the code to save it actually better than simply appearing it out > of thin air as did previously? If the patch that did all the pic work was in > one patch, it would be easier for me to see the change in its entirety.
