From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id DA33D388B011; Wed, 27 May 2020 08:09:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DA33D388B011
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1590566944;
 bh=7WtsmpSWMUJSo6fUOYYeTs0HOgEibCfnxuEZIrOG0Ik=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=QhjjHlO9kEjCU1+TU6CnkvxhbnF096g9Sg0RFIQKfQvKP7zSLxB+cn8kkfu7k4TRX
 tcasG/i2WqEeNyNfQ4mMd3nr5GBe9r3bkyvas5tvC7OURqL6nqzHvdHbDkuzurp8+e
 QHatmQLeVU3Wqr5713tzsrAd/uBsCgwLdZ547+60=
From: "bule1 at huawei dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95285] AArch64:aarch64 medium code model proposal
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:09:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bule1 at huawei dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-95285-4-78CCFH3G6F@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95285-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95285-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:09:05 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95285

--- Comment #6 from Bu Le <bule1 at huawei dot com> ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #4)
> (In reply to Bu Le from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #2)

> Well the question is whether we're talking about more than 4GB of code or
> more than 4GB of data. With >4GB code you're indeed stuck with the large
> model. With data it is feasible to automatically use malloc for arrays wh=
en
> larger than a certain size, so there is no need to change the application=
 at
> all. Something like that could be the default in the small model so that =
you
> don't have any extra overhead unless you have huge arrays. Making the
> threshold configurable means you can tune it for a specific application.


Is this automatic malloc already avaiable on some target? I haven't found an
example that works in that way. Would you mind provide an example?=