public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug target/23525] inefficient parameter passing on x86
[not found] <bug-23525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2012-01-11 14:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-11 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23525
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-11 14:19:13 UTC ---
push/pop vs mov is on purpose.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/23525] inefficient parameter passing on x86
2005-08-23 6:47 [Bug target/23525] New: " dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-08-23 11:26 ` [Bug target/23525] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-08-26 17:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-08-26 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26 17:35 -------
Hmm, one more thing the push (the -Os code) while the -O2 code does not so it seems to me that it
should be faster not to do the push.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23525
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug target/23525] inefficient parameter passing on x86
2005-08-23 6:47 [Bug target/23525] New: " dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
@ 2005-08-23 11:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-26 17:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-08-23 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-23 11:16 -------
I don't think this is inefficient at all for the pentium Pro and above because they don't like the complex
instructions as the older processors do.
And if you want to optimize for size (which gets what you want) use -Os:
pushl cp_pipe
call close
pushl cp_pipe+4
call close
popl %eax
movl $0, waiting_for_initial_map
popl %edx
ret
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23525
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-11 14:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-23525-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-01-11 14:19 ` [Bug target/23525] inefficient parameter passing on x86 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2005-08-23 6:47 [Bug target/23525] New: " dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot edu
2005-08-23 11:26 ` [Bug target/23525] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-08-26 17:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).