On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 20:23 +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> On 25/11/15 12:14, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> > I would like to ping the patch:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02174.html.
> >
>
> Ping.
Yes, please add :)
I have noticed gcc 4.4.5 often produces less optimzed code
than the old 3.4.6. Below is the latest example. I am
starting to wonder if I need rebuild gcc 4.4.5 and/or
add new options to gcc when I compile. Any insight?
Jocke
const char *test(int i)
{
const char *p = abc\0def\0gef;
David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote on 2010/12/08 17:38:11:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
I have noticed gcc 4.4.5 often produces less optimzed code
than the old 3.4.6. Below is the latest example. I am
starting to wonder if I
Nathan Froyd froy...@codesourcery.com wrote on 2010/12/01 18:33:23:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:04:06PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why is not
const char cstr[] = mystr;
const int myint = 3;
added to a read only section?
Especially since
const int myarr[]={1,2,3};
is placed
Nathan Froyd froy...@codesourcery.com wrote on 2010/12/01 18:33:23:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:04:06PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why is not
const char cstr[] = mystr;
const int myint = 3;
added to a read only section?
Especially since
const int myarr[]={1,2,3};
is placed
gcc 4.4.5, powerpc32 does not fail
const char wd[6] = Wednes;
even though wd only has room for 6 chars. Is this intended?
Jocke
Why is not
const char cstr[] = mystr;
const int myint = 3;
added to a read only section?
Especially since
const int myarr[]={1,2,3};
is placed in .rodata.
hmm, -G 0 does place these in .rodata but why do I have to specify that?
Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/27 13:59:00:
On 27/10/2010 07:47, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/27 04:01:50:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:53:00AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything
Using gcc 4.4.4 -Os on
loop(long *to, long *from, long len)
{
for (; len; --len)
*++to = *++from;
}
I get
/* gcc 4.4.4 -Os
loop:
addi 5,5,1
li 9,0
mtctr 5
b .L2
.L3:
lwzx 0,4,9
stwx 0,3,9
.L2:
addi 9,9,4
bdnz
Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/11/03 17:44:17:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Using gcc 4.4.4 -Os on
You might want to try 4.5.0 which IIRC has a fix for this issue. The
issue is IV-OPTs does not take into account
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/27 04:01:50:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:53:00AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:37, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Everything went dead quiet the minute I stated to send patches, what did
I do wrong?
Nothing, you just ran
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/14 15:54:32:
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/12 11:00:36:
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC to load the address where the data is.
No, with ppc64 -mcmodel
Joakim Tjernlund/Transmode wrote on 2010/10/09 18:32:40:
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07
20:21:38:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why not offer some of this on PowerPC32? mcmodel=small would
probably be enough
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/11 14:58:45:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Now I have had a closer look at this and it looks much like -fpic
on ppc32, you still use the GOT/TOC to load the address where the data is.
No, with ppc64 -mcmodel
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/06 00:19:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:40:11PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
yes, but this could be a new PIC mode that uses a new better
PIC mode for everything. Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07 20:21:38:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why not offer some of this on PowerPC32? mcmodel=small would probably be
enough.
Well as they say, contributions are welcome. Note, 32-bit mode
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/06 00:13:22:
On 10/05/2010 02:40 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address in the function prologue(why is that so?)
Because PIC code can be called from non-PIC code
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07 15:00:25:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:56:55AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl
Michael Meissner meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote on 2010/10/07 20:21:38:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 04:50:50PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Why not offer some of this on PowerPC32? mcmodel=small would probably be
enough.
Well as they say, contributions are welcome. Note, 32-bit mode
Alan Modra amo...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/10/06 00:19:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:40:11PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
yes, but this could be a new PIC mode that uses a new better
PIC mode for everything. Especially one that doesn't require each function
to calculate the GOT address
Gabriel Paubert paub...@iram.es wrote on 2010/10/06 10:15:26:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:55:36PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/05 20:56:55:
On 10/05/2010 06:54 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote
While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
to be accessible through %pc relative address rather than and ABS address
or through GOT. Has this feature ever been considered by gcc?
Jocke
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/10/05 15:47:38:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
to be accessible through %pc relative address rather than and ABS address
or through GOT. Has
Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/10/05 23:12:19:
On 10/05/2010 01:55 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
I don't do x86 or alpha so let me ask: If you run the code on an address
!= link address, will it do the right thing?
Yes of course. It wouldn't be -fpic code otherwise.
Just
Is memcpy supposed to work when the src and dest are the same:
memcpy(p, p, 100);
Jocke
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de wrote on 2010/04/30 16:10:42:
On Fri, 2010-04-30 16:08:15 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Is memcpy supposed to work when the src and dest are the same:
memcpy(p, p, 100);
It may work, but you cannot rely on it. Use memmove
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize add with carry properly:
Please file a missed-optimization report according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ . Thanks.
I rather
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize add with carry properly:
BTW, I can see in gcc src:
(define_insn
[(set (match_operand:CC 0 cc_reg_operand =x,?y
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc
David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 14:54:55:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 15:29:54:
On 26 April 2010 15:22, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
wrote:
feature enhancement. Some of the information can be left blank, but
if we do not have information about the system and an example, we may
Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize add with carry properly:
static u32
add32carry(u32 sum, u32 x)
{
u32 z = sum + x;
if (sum + x x)
z++;
return z;
}
Becomes:
add32carry:
add 3,3,4
subfc 0,4,3
subfe 0,0,0
subfc 0,0,3
mr 3,0
Instead of:
Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much better
than gcc -O2 while doing crc16:
# gcc -O1 CRC16.c ;./a.out
crc1:f532 crc2:f532
crc16 tv_res:0 :12768
CRC16 tv_res:0 :10795
# gcc -O2 CRC16.c ;./a.out
crc1:f532 crc2:f532
crc16 tv_res:0 :17092
CRC16 tv_res:0 :11581
# gcc
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/02/14 19:05:24:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much better
than gcc -O2 while doing crc16:
Reducing the noise by adding
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote on 2010/02/14 20:21:50:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 08:06:20PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
the warmup isn't really needed after I added memset and inline or not should
not matter that much are only used once so I think my
conclusion still stands: gcc
37 matches
Mail list logo
