This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Hendrik Greving <hendrik dot greving dot intel at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:57:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: Vectorizer/alignment
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CANc4vhqiMCbkHHbKjY-tPmvi7iU4wXP4Jf_4S83jGTBJTCCi3Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <3a0cd1a6-76c9-4539-9830-8ddbf5405db3 at email dot android dot com> <CANc4vhobNfNQkm1HdFjL5c1tUnxOiNyumFG5XUCb71LRxBdU5g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFiYyc0G5vCtQp9Zy-xUyfeK6475FrVn++yacW1kB_v5H+nTjQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131111113922 dot GW27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz> <CAFiYyc0TtYQUaaYCkVYKMbMu3o7XrG_Sd8HbwbNGxpto4-wcgw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131111133926 dot GX27813 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 02:13:24PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:29:29PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Hendrik Greving
>> >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >> > That didn't do it. What was the rationale w.r.t. to the relation
>> >> > between the vectorized sequenced and/or the alignment (I think these
>> >> > things are actually 2 separate things..) and the common block?!
>> >> We cannot adjust the alignment of a common block as we don't know
>> >> which common block the linker will pick in the end. We can (and do)
>> >> adjust the alignment of global variables though. And C++ defaults
>> >> to -fno-common.
>> >> In general when asking optimization questions it helps to provide
>> >> a testcase that can be compiled - otherwise you just provoke
>> >> random guesses (like mine) ;)
>> > Well, we had the discussion about turning -fno-common by default for C as
>> > well, I think it wouldn't hurt and let people use -fcommon if they need it.
>> Yeah, so ... shall we just do it? Maybe just for a selected set of
>> targets (based on OS?)?
> I vote for it. Perhaps with the exception when the variables are also weak,
> this worst case results in a link time failure which is easily fixable by
> adding -fcommon where really required, and in the usual case (dynamic
> linking) it is limited to the each package individually, if we document this
> in porting_to.html, I think changing the default is fine.
> But I guess it would be nice to hear more voices.
Most fallout will be from headers that fail to declare variables
as 'extern' (IIRC SPEC CPU 2000 has tons of that). It also
hides bugs where one unit has 'int x' and one 'float x' (SPEC CPU 2006,
LTO diagnoses this).
I suppose targets without .bss section support should not switch
(that is, targets not defining BSS_SECTION_ASM_OP or