On 10/3/18 10:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Given the desire for reload to die and the difficulties testing this
> change on a reload target, I don't think mirroring this optimization in
> reload is necessary.
Right, it's good to have incentives to move away from reload to LRA.
Maybe we could add a
On 10/02/2018 02:51 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On 10/2/18 1:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:42:19AM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
+/* The default implementation of TARGET_SETJMP_PRESERVES_NONVOLATILE_REGS_P.
*/
+
+bool
+default_setjmp_preserves_nonvolatile_regs_p
On 10/2/18 12:51 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 10/2/18 1:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:42:19AM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>> +/* The default implementation of
>>> TARGET_SETJMP_PRESERVES_NONVOLATILE_REGS_P. */
>>> +
>>> +bool
>>>
On 10/2/18 1:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:42:19AM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> +/* The default implementation of
>> TARGET_SETJMP_PRESERVES_NONVOLATILE_REGS_P. */
>> +
>> +bool
>> +default_setjmp_preserves_nonvolatile_regs_p (void)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>>
On 10/2/18 1:21 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:42:19AM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> +/* The default implementation of
>> TARGET_SETJMP_PRESERVES_NONVOLATILE_REGS_P. */
>> +
>> +bool
>> +default_setjmp_preserves_nonvolatile_regs_p (void)
>> +{
>> +
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:42:19AM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> +/* The default implementation of TARGET_SETJMP_PRESERVES_NONVOLATILE_REGS_P.
> */
> +
> +bool
> +default_setjmp_preserves_nonvolatile_regs_p (void)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
You can just use hook_bool_void_false for
On 10/2/18 11:42 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On 10/1/18 4:25 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> This is currently bootstrapping right now, but ok for trunk assuming no
> regressions?
>
> gcc/
> PR rtl-optimization/87466
> * target.def (setjmp_preserves_nonvolatile_regs_p): New target hook.
>
On 10/1/18 4:25 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Since all implementations of this hook will have to do the same, I think
>> it is better if you leave this test at the (only two) callers. The hook
>> doesn't need an argument then, and maybe is better named something like
>> setjmp_is_normal_call?
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 11:25:21AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Since all implementations of this hook will have to do the same, I think
> > it is better if you leave this test at the (only two) callers. The hook
> > doesn't need an argument then, and maybe is better named something like
> >
> Since all implementations of this hook will have to do the same, I think
> it is better if you leave this test at the (only two) callers. The hook
> doesn't need an argument then, and maybe is better named something like
> setjmp_is_normal_call? (The original code did not test CALL_P btw).
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:12:02PM -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Currently, both IRA and LRA spill all pseudo regs that are live across a
> setjmp call. If the target has a sane setjmp, then the compiler should not
> have to treat the setjmp call any differently than is does any other
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:12 AM Peter Bergner wrote:
>
> Currently, both IRA and LRA spill all pseudo regs that are live across a
> setjmp call. If the target has a sane setjmp, then the compiler should not
> have to treat the setjmp call any differently than is does any other normal
> function
Currently, both IRA and LRA spill all pseudo regs that are live across a
setjmp call. If the target has a sane setjmp, then the compiler should not
have to treat the setjmp call any differently than is does any other normal
function call. Namely, just mark all pseudos that are live across the
13 matches
Mail list logo
