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: [Revert][AArch64] PR 63521 Define REG_ALLOC_ORDER/HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER


Andrew Pinski writes:

> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> James Greenhalgh writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:35:41PM +0100, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>>> Current IRA still use both target macros in a few places.
>>>>
>>>> Tell IRA to use the order we defined rather than with it's own cost
>>>> calculation. Allocate caller saved first, then callee saved.
>>>>
>>>> This is especially useful for LR/x30, as it's free to allocate and is
>>>> pure caller saved when used in leaf function.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't noticed significant impact on benchmarks, but by grepping some
>>>> keywords like "Spilling", "Push.*spill" etc in ira rtl dump, the number
>>>> is smaller.
>>>>
>>>> OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> OK, sorry for the delay.
>>>
>>> It might be mail client mangling, but please check that the trailing slashes
>>> line up in the version that gets committed.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> James
>>>
>>>> 2015-05-19  Jiong. Wang  <jiong.wang@arm.com>
>>>>
>>>> gcc/
>>>>   PR 63521
>>>>   * config/aarch64/aarch64.h (REG_ALLOC_ORDER): Define.
>>>>   (HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER): Define.
>>
>> Patch reverted.
>
> I did not see a reason why this patch was reverted.  Maybe I am
> missing an email or something.

There are several execution regressions under gcc testsuite, although as
far as I can see it's this patch exposed hidding bugs in those
testcases, but there might be one other issue, so to be conservative, I
temporarily reverted this patch.

>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>>

-- 
Regards,
Jiong


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