This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC][AArch64] Define TARGET_SPILL_CLASS
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>
- To: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Kugan <kugan dot vivekanandarajah at linaro dot org>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 11:20:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC][AArch64] Define TARGET_SPILL_CLASS
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <537D3A51 dot 2090006 at linaro dot org> <537DEAFB dot 9030100 at arm dot com> <53857FA4 dot 70405 at linaro dot org> <CAJA7tRZ=M7zOB9oPV-fhiVdJ4Phj3thnPjJR_ECTOkotwR_hpQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFqB+Pz05piMVt=Rn31N8Jz36HrqO2+LSyb-AirifFMrC6101A at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: ramrad01 at arm dot com
>> I don't think increasing GP2FP and FP2GP costs is a bad thing. In a
>> number of benchmarks we've seen increased moves between FP and integer
>> registers and having this fix appears to help some of them. However
>> moving this to generic model needs more benchmarking across a variety
>> of cores before it can safely be applied there.
>
> I'm aligned with Richards earlier comment on this topic. Specifically
> I'd like to see numbers in processor specific tuning tables, then we
> can take a view on how to adjust the generic numbers.
Agreed - that's what I wanted to say but probably wasn't clear enough.
Ramana
>
> /Marcus