On Thu, 19 May 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Maybe it would be worth breaking with tradition and making
> -fno-delayed-branch imply -Wa,-O0 though. Back in the day,
> the assembler's version of delayed-branch filling was applied
> to pretty much every function, so the separation was probably
>
The -O1 sounds like a reasonable choice. Thanks for looking at the problem.
Toshi
--- On Sat, 5/21/11, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Subject: Re: mips-elf-gcc -fno-delayed-branch problem
> To: "Toshi Morita"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Satu
Toshi Morita writes:
> Maybe GAS could recognize -fno-delayed-branch to selectively disable
> branch slot filling?
I'd agree if it was -mno-delayed-branch. I think -f* options are
generally compiler options, while -m* options are target options that
could in principle be passed down to either th
ard Sandiford
> Subject: Re: mips-elf-gcc -fno-delayed-branch problem
> To: "Toshi Morita"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Thursday, May 19, 2011, 1:03 AM
> Toshi Morita
> writes:
> > There's a problem where compiling code with
> -fno-delayed-branch still
&g
Toshi Morita writes:
> There's a problem where compiling code with -fno-delayed-branch still
> fills branch delay slots.
> [...]
> The problem appears to be caused with GNU AS. It now has the
> capability to reorder instructions, and there is no ".set noreorder"
> emitted by the compiler, so the a
target: mips-elf
version: 4.4.1
There's a problem where compiling code with -fno-delayed-branch still fills
branch delay slots.
[ubxju10]/home/jupiter/tmorita/dhrystone/test 1097 % cat minlib.c
#include
int printf(const char *format, ...)
{
register int a0 asm ("a0");
register
