This is the intended behavior, though now I see that the documentation
isn't very clear.
You need to use -fprofile-use - the typical usage scenario is to
compile with -fprofile-generate
to build an executable to do profile collection, and then compile with
-fprofile-use
to build optimized code
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Hariharan harihar...@picochip.com wrote:
Hi Seongbae,
Does that mean that someone cant use the profile just to annotate branches
(and get better code by that), without having to get the additional baggage
of unroll-loops, peel-loops etc?
You can do that by
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:20 PM, David Meggy david.me...@icron.com wrote:
Hi, I'm working on a very embedded project where we have no operating
system, and there is no window overflow trap handler. I'm really
stretched for memory and I'd like to reduce the stack size. I haven't
not being
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Joel Sherrill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Moving on the SPARC, I see a lot of similar
unsupported instruction failures. I only
see a single sparc feature test. It is for
-multrasparc -mvis and it is actually
passing on the sparc instruction
2008/3/13 Joel Sherrill [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Joel Sherrill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Moving on the SPARC, I see a lot of similar
unsupported instruction failures. I only
see a single sparc feature test
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Joel Sherrill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
Can someone familiar with VIS provide an instruction
that is OK to do a run-time test with to check if
it is supported?
Perhaps this fragment from
2008/3/1 Andrew Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm am still struggling with a good solution that avoids unneeded saves
of parameter registers.
To solve problem all I need to know are the registers actually used for
parameters. Since the caller assumes all of these are clobbered by
callee
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Hutchinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Register saves by prolog (pushes) are typically made with reference to
df_regs_ever_live_p() or regs_ever_live. ||
If my understanding is correct, these calls reflect register USEs and
not register DEFs. So if
is not a leaf function (as same register
would be preserved by deeper calls)
Andy
Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Hutchinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Register saves by prolog (pushes) are typically made with reference
gain anything by moving them to a separate, out-of-line
representation?
I don't know. I don't see such a proposal on the table, and I don't
have one myself, so I don't know how to evaluate it.
Ian
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
On 10/24/07, Revital1 Eres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
While testing a patch for the SMS I got an ICE which seems
to be related to the fact we build def-use chains only
and not use-def chains. (removed in the following patch -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01682.html)
On 10/24/07, Revital1 Eres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem arises when we delete an insn from the df that contains a
use but do not update the def-use chain of it's def as we do not have
the use-def chain to reach it's def, This later causes a problem when
we try to dump the
Hi Dave,
On x86-64, no regression in 4.2 with the patch.
So both 4.2 and mainline patches are OK.
I'd appreciate it if you can add the testcase
- it's up to you whether to add it in a separate patch or with this patch.
Thanks for fixing it.
Seongbae
On 10/19/07, Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) [EMAIL
On 10/19/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:25:14 -0700
If you're not in a hurry, can you wait
till I run the regtest against 4.2 on x86-64 ?
I've already discussed the patch with Kenny
and we agreed
On 10/19/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:56:49 -0700
Did you replace the DF_REF_REG_USE with DEF ?
If so, that's not correct. We need to add DEF as well as USE:
...
Then, we'll need to change
(O32 and N32 ABI).
Essentially you're asking for N32 equivalent.
My bet is that most people simply don't care enough about
the performance differential.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
-chain.
So if there's something wrong with the chain,
it could go nuts.
Can you send me the rtl dump of loop2_invariant pass ?
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
On 10/16/07, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Seongbae Park (박성배, 朴成培) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:53:37 -0700
Annyoung haseyo, Park-sanseng-nim,
:)
loop-invariant.cc uses ud-chain.
So if there's something wrong with the chain,
it could go nuts.
Can you
On 10/5/07, Hariharan Sandanagobalane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seongbae Park (???, ???) wrote:
On 9/27/07, Hariharan Sandanagobalane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am implementing support for PBO on picochip port of GCC (not yet
submitted to mainline).
I see that GCC generates 2
On 9/27/07, Hariharan Sandanagobalane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am implementing support for PBO on picochip port of GCC (not yet
submitted to mainline).
I see that GCC generates 2 files, xx.gcno and xx.gcda, containing the
profile information, the former containing the flow graph
, if you're not in a hurry -
I should be able to look at it next week.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
reviewers can approve the changes in the parts of the compiler
they maintain,
they still need approval of their own patches from other maintainers
or reviewers.
Write After Approval(last name alphabetical
order)
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http
the maximum vcg file that is created
is a function of the optimizations and not a function of the source file..
Why?
There's no guarantee,
although usually on any particular version of gcc on a given platform
with given options, probably it is.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http
, once you narrowed it down to that level,
you'll most likely still need to narrow it down further
but you'll have a better chance (you may want to add
another more fine grained dbgcnt for that).
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
is a virtual_stack_reg?
FIRST_VIRTUAL_REGISTER = regno = LAST_VIRTUAL_REGISTER
--
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
See gcc/graph.c:print_rtl_graph_with_bb().
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
- do you know who might be interested in adding insn level
dbg_cnt in the scheduler ? Current dbg_cnt (sched_insn) causes ICE :(
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
if appropriate.
See URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
specmake: *** [combine.o] Error 1
Sounds like there's a pass that are emitting a barrier during cfglayout mode.
I'll look at them.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
of the
parameter is passed to the DImode left-shift library function
__lshrdi3. From the dump-file it seems the first pass it is
lost, is combine.
Let me know if I can be of help.
brgds, H-P
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
--
#pragma ident
On 5/2/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seongbae Park wrote:
On 5/1/07, Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01 May 2007 14:28:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that it would be appropriate to backport the patch to gcc 4.2.
Lets first get the patch
can be found at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01746.html
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Thanks for the plug, Andrew.
C++ maintainers,
Please consider this as another ping for my patch :)
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
; p++, i++)
{base = q, offset = offsetof(x), indices: lower = 0 upper = ? step =
sizeof (*p) value = i}
so that dependence analysis and friends do not have to distinguish
between accesses through pointers and arrays
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
combine is the real immediate symptom,
as it's most likely just a dump of rld[].nocombine.
Show us at least your error message and the rtl
that you think is causing the problem.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
attaching the VCG representation, the VCG text file, and the original
test program..
Thank You
sunzir
I don't know what kind of vcg viewer/converter you're using,
but set it to ignore class 3 edges - you'll get what you expected.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
to yet.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
might be of interest
to some other people as well.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
their documentation about +Ointeger_overflow= flag).
IBM xlc has very similar approach, IIRC.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
consider how it can be used for debugging information as well. And I
don't think SHF_DISCARD is a good name. We don't want to arbitrarily
discard the data, we want to discard it in certain specific scenarios.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
to cover such a use case ?
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
almost all the benchmarks
on Dec 30, including popular programs like bzip2 and gzip.
Also, this is only on x86 -
other targets that benefit more from software pipelinine/modulo scheduling
may suffer even more than x86, especially on the FP side.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http
On 12/29/06, Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seongbae Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/29/06, Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-O2 does not currently imply '-ffast-math'ish optimizations even
though the C standard would allow it to.
Can you point me to the relevant section
,
exactly because of the undefined aspect.
That's enough playing a language laywer for me in a day.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
,
not for the compiler developers, mind you):
http://www.aristeia.com/Papers/DDJ_Jul_Aug_2004_revised.pdf
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
enhancements
mentioned in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ProfileFeedbackEnhancements
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
get impossible stack traces, etc).
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
the rest of the compilation,
we can throw away and recompute certain information
(e.g. often certain control flow graph can be recovered,
hence does not need to be encoded)
but those details can be worked out as the implementation of the IO interface
gets more in shape.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park
often in string manipulation or buffer management code.
More importantly some of C++ STL iterators often end up in such a form.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
this by hand -
inspect what the layout of the class is by writing a test program
and looking at how the fields are layed out,
and replicating the same data in the assembly.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
are *logically*
layed out - otherwise you won't be able to generate correct entries.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
On 7/3/06, Gary Funck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seongbae Park wrote:
As I said, you're welcome to implement a new option
(either a runtime option or a compile time configuration option)
that will allow mixing TLS vs non-TLS.
In a way, we've already done that -- in an experimental dialact
global_counter;
in C99 w/ __thread extension.
Your proposal is equivalent, in UPC, like allowing
declaring a global variable as private, and then later
turn it into a shared in the definition, or vice versa.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
movl%esp, %ebp
movl[EMAIL PROTECTED], %eax
movl%gs:(%eax), %eax
leave
ret
.Lfe2:
.size func2,.Lfe2-func2
.ident GCC: (GNU) 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)
#
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
On 7/2/06, Gary Funck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Seongbae Park wrote:
Because the compiler has to generate different code
for accesses to __thread vs non __thread variable
In my view, this is implementation-defined, and generally can vary
depending upon the underlying linker and OS
of discussion, and whether or not that patch will be
accepted in the mainline will be yet another.
Because of the reasons I said above, I think it's a bad idea in general
and I'll oppose to it for any of platforms I care about.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
can trip it over,
but the memory allocation (malloc and the likes) shouldn't be a
problem as long as
it returns 8-byte aligned block on 32bit and 16-byte aligned on 64bit.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
selection.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
of:
microprocessor, OS, compiler and runtime libraries..
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
the performance penalty and it won't really fix
the root cause - which is your code.
--
#pragma ident Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com;
60 matches
Mail list logo
