public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/47893] [4.6 Regression] 4.6 miscompiles mesa on i686
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:31:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-47893-4-G1UVQgWQqw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-47893-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47893

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-25 17:39:36 UTC ---
I guess that would break pa, because then
  else if (!STACK_ALIGNMENT_NEEDED)
    {
      ...
    }
will be executed whenever record_alignment_slots is false, even for non-zero
sizes or non-BLKmode.
Other than that, I think it would be better to change the bool argument into an
enum, after all we need just 3 variants, reduce_alignment_ok &&
record_alignment_slots (for caller-save), !reduce_alignment_ok &&
record_alignment_slots (for assign_stack_local) and !reduce_alignment_ok &&
!record_alignment_slots (for assign_stack_temp_for_type).

I'm currently running x86_64-linux and i686-linux bootstraps/regtests gathering
statistics, so far from the partial numbers I have a patch like that isn't
going to pessimize stuff too much, add_frame_space from within
assign_stack_temp_for_type accounts for like .5% of all add_frame_space calls
(and similarly in the number of bytes thus recorded).


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-02-25 17:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-25 12:48 [Bug middle-end/47893] New: " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 12:56 ` [Bug middle-end/47893] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 13:07 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 13:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 16:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 16:41 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 16:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 16:43 ` law at redhat dot com
2011-02-25 17:31 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 17:36 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 18:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2011-02-25 19:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 19:26 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-26 14:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-28 17:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-28 17:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-47893-4-G1UVQgWQqw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
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).