This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Typo or intended?

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Bingfeng Mei <bmei at broadcom dot com>
Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "vmakarov at redhat dot com" <vmakarov at redhat dot com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:07:26 +0000
Subject: Re: Typo or intended?
References: <7FB04A5C213E9943A72EE127DB74F0AD49F021CE68@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>

Bingfeng Mei wrote:

> I just updated our porting to include last 2-3 weeks of GCC
> developments. I noticed a large number of test failures at -O1 that
> use a user-defined data type (based on a special register file of
> our processor). All variables of such type are now spilled to memory
> which we don't allow at -O1 because it is too expensive. After
> investigation, I found that it is the following new code causes the
> trouble. I don't quite understand the function of the new code, but
> I don't see what's special for -O1 in terms of register allocation
> in comparison with higher optimizing levels. If I change it to
> (optimize < 1), everthing is fine as before. I start to wonder
> whether (optimize <= 1) is a typo or intended. Thanks in advance.

-O1 is supposed to allow debugging but still optimize, so it's quite
possible that Vlad did intend to do this.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39432

Andrew.

References:
- Typo or intended?
  - From: Bingfeng Mei

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