On May 16, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I wonder now if I should keep this as SH-specific code, or does it
make
sense to write this a bit more generic - i.e. a variable number of
constant ranges, configurable size of small cold blocks, and the
range
of branches selectable - a
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Yes, the problem on Thumb-1 is the same in almost all respects:
I had Joern's mail in my reply-to queue, and was going to say basically
the same things as Richard, so I'll just echo the fact that I'd like to
see some generic infrastructure built.
> With the Thumb code t
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:09, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> The constant pool placement that sh_reorg does has somewhat hapazard
> results. It does not take execution frequencies into account, so if
> you are unlucky, you can end up with a constant table wedged into some
> hoit spot of the code, which
The constant pool placement that sh_reorg does has somewhat hapazard
results.
It does not take execution frequencies into account, so if you are
unlucky, you
can end up with a constant table wedged into some hoit spot of the code,
which not
only adds an extra jump into the critical path, but can
