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: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs

From: Dmitry Plotnikov <leitz at ispras dot ru>
To: Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: Dmitry Melnik <dm at ispras dot ru>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, "julian at codesourcery dot com" <julian at codesourcery dot com>, "jie at codesourcery dot com" <jie at codesourcery dot com>, "abel at ispras dot ru" <abel at ispras dot ru>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:29:15 +0400
Subject: Re: [RFC, ARM] later split of symbol_refs
References: <4FEB1F9C.40004@ispras.ru> <4FEB2C87.7070602@arm.com> <4FEDB23E.8070705@ispras.ru> <4FEEC248.5010307@gcc.gnu.org>

2012/6/30 Georg-Johann Lay <gjl@gcc.gnu.org>:
> Is there a special reason to restrict it to SYMBOL_REF?
> Doesn't the same issue occur with, e.g.
> (const (plus (symbol_ref const_int))) or label_ref?

Hi!
We have added splits for symbol_ref plus const and label_ref.  With
this patch, assembly code and oprofile data look better,
but on SPEC2K INT it's about 3% slower than with split for only symbol_refs.
We will try to find later why this happens.
For now, we commited the original patch.

Attachment: symbol_plus.patch
Description: Binary data

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