This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Revert][AArch64] PR 63521 Define REG_ALLOC_ORDER/HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER
- From: Jiong Wang <jiong dot wang at arm dot com>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: James Greenhalgh <James dot Greenhalgh at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches\ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:26:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Revert][AArch64] PR 63521 Define REG_ALLOC_ORDER/HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <n998ucjwgk1 dot fsf at arm dot com> <20150722112203 dot GA17314 at arm dot com> <n99wpxpgbww dot fsf at arm dot com> <CA+=Sn1mTRBioO5HC0W8pgm2+QDx79aOPgLkEbG4BejR+RBuqnw at mail dot gmail dot com>
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