This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Honnor ix86_accumulate_outgoing_args again
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Ganesh dot Gopalasubramanian at amd dot com
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:51:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: Honnor ix86_accumulate_outgoing_args again
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131002224516 dot GA26046 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <524CC41F dot 5090801 at redhat dot com> <20131003130524 dot GC16774 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20131010184005 dot GA26449 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20131112001840 dot GL27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAMe9rOopMxzT2T7e2ahQo=Av0bAFonKoyDjiR8y1cvmWQEB-yA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131112100545 dot GB28104 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20131112102646 dot GO27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <52824BB0 dot 1000903 at redhat dot com> <20131112154949 dot GW27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:39:28AM -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> > >> Shall we also disable argument accumulation for cores? It seems we won't
> > >> solve the IRA issues, right?
> > > You mean LRA issues here, right? If you are starting to use
> > > no-accumulate-outgoing-args much more often than in the past, I think
> > > the problem that LRA forces a frame pointer in that case is much more
> > > important now (or has that been fixed in the mean time?). Vlad?
> > >
> > >
> > I guess it is serious. So it should fix this for gcc-4.9 in any case.
> > I'd say it need 1-2 week of my work. Right now I am stiil thinking how
> > to better approach to the implementation of it in LRA.
>
> That would be nice. Given that it is a regression from 4.7 anyway, it can
> be fixed in stage3 too, but preferrably sooner than later, so that there is
> some time to tune the backend tunables.
Sounds good. I do not think it is critical - we can always just keep argument
accumulation on as we did for 4.8 and probably few earlier releases, but it
would be really nice to fix this the correct way.
Thank you!
Honza
>
> Jakub