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] |
On 11/20/2015 02:19 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
Right. It just really helps me to have something I can poke at -- it's just the type of learner I am. I tried to trip the test in that #if several times last year and never came up with anything. So naturally if we can trip it with the rl78 I want to dig into it.Hi Jeff,The code there would solve this problem, but the approach is is overly cautious, since it disables the optimization for all extensions that increase the number of hard registers used. Some of these will be viable candidates, provided that the extra hard registers are no used. (This is certainly true for the RL78, where the (patched) optimization does improve code, even though the widening does use extra registers).Nick -- can you pass along your testcode?Sure - this is for the RL78 toolchain. In theory the problem is generic, but I have not tested other toolchains.
Compile the gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42833.c or gcc.c-torture/execute/strct-stdarg-1.c tests at -O1 or higher with -free also specified on the command line. Without -free these tests pass. With -free they fail.
Perfect. Building rl78-elf cross bits as I type... jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |