> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > The idea here was originally to prevent LOOP instruction to get out of
> > bounds.
> > ASM statement even if they are single line may be arbitrary long and thus
> > can
> > run out of the limits.
>
> Arbitrary long, but interrupted by sem
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> The idea here was originally to prevent LOOP instruction to get out of bounds.
> ASM statement even if they are single line may be arbitrary long and thus can
> run out of the limits.
Arbitrary long, but interrupted by semi-colons? From the
def
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
>> > Index: config/i386/i386.md
>> > ===
>> > --- config/i386/i386.md (revision 187257)
>> > +++ config/i386/i386.md (working copy)
>> > @@ -661,7 +661,7 @@
>> >
>> > ;; Describ
>
> > Index: config/i386/i386.md
> > ===
> > --- config/i386/i386.md (revision 187257)
> > +++ config/i386/i386.md (working copy)
> > @@ -661,7 +661,7 @@
> >
> > ;; Describe a user's asm statement.
> > (define_asm_attributes
> > -
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed gcc predicts huge sizes for asm statements on ix86. This is
> due to define_asm_attributes in i386.md, where the length *per single
> instruction* in the asm is set to 128. That doesn't look realistic to
> me. Is there a go
Hi,
I noticed gcc predicts huge sizes for asm statements on ix86. This is
due to define_asm_attributes in i386.md, where the length *per single
instruction* in the asm is set to 128. That doesn't look realistic to
me. Is there a good reason for this large value? Or should something
like the patch
