This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: LRA has been merged into trunk.


On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Should there be a -fno-ira option before reload pass is
>>> removed?  It will be useful to investiage IRA regressions.
>>
>> You mean -fno-lra, and s/IRA/LRA/, right?  I think the reason for no
>
> Yes, I meant -fno-lra.
>
>> compiler switch is that while returning false from ix86_lra_p ()
>> likely works right now, -fno-lra mode would be yet another
>> thing to support.  So, for investigations just return false from ix86_lra_p,
>> similarly for benchmarking, but as it needs compiler source changes, it is
>> obvious that with old reload everybody is on their own if it breaks
>> for targets that switched to LRA.
>>
>
> I'd like to compare glibc code quality on x32, x86-64 and ia32
> with and without LRA.  We don't even need to document -fno-lra
> or we can make it -mno-lra as x86 undocumented switch.  I
> expect -fno-lra/-mno-lra will only be useful in a short period
> of time.

You can always compare to the revision before LRA merged.  My understanding
is that -fno-lra is not easily possible as backends change in non-trivial
ways once they go the LRA way.  Thus you'd not compare what you want
to compare.

Richard.

>
> --
> H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]