On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Max Filippov wrote:
> 1. in windowed ABI stack pointer update is always split into two opcodes:
> add and movsp. How gcc optimization passes are supposed to know that
> 'movsp' is related to 'add' and that stack allocation is complete only after
> movsp?
The
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Marc Gauthier wrote:
> Other than the required 16-byte stack alignment, there's nothing in
> the ABI that requires these extra 16 bytes. Perhaps there was a bad
> implementation of the alloca exception handler at some point a long
> time ago that prompted the ext
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> Then configuration w/o multiplication should call helper at -O0 and
> use shift at higher optimization levels?
That is what I would expect.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> Ok, then I see why this doesn't happen: mulsi3 pattern matching is
> conditional on TARGET_MUL32, so when TARGET_MUL32 ==0 and
> expand_simple_binop emits a call to a helper it's not considered
> mulsi3, it's just a call:
>
> (call_insn/u 17 1
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:16 AM, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>>> How can we have a mulsi3 pattern that don't get expanded until it's
>>&
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Thomas Schwinge
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Neither do I really know anything about Xtensa, nor do I have a lot of
> experience in these parts of GCC back ends, but:
There is a lot of background to know here. Unfortunately, I have no
familiarity with making debian packages,
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:21 AM, augustine.sterl...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hope this helps, and I'm happy to answer more questions.
Also, one technique commonly used by people who ship software for
Xtensa is to write it such that it could compile for any variant at
all. This requires care
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Am 07.09.2016 um 18:21 schrieb augustine.sterl...@gmail.com:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Thomas Schwinge
>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Neither do I really know anything about Xtensa, nor do I h
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> So, first step is done. Our firmware is using GCC 6.2.
>
> If i see it correctly, main problem are binutils. First of all we need
> custom binutils to compile GCC assambler code with custom opcodes - it's
> a horror.
> What would be better w
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
> Hi Sterling,
>
> for xtensa we have a number of bugfixes in the mainline that were never
> backported to the stable branches. It'd be great having them in the stable
> gcc releases instead of carrying the fixes in various toolchain builders.
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
