From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21138 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2007 00:03:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 21129 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2007 00:03:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from outbound-sin.frontbridge.com (HELO outbound7-sin-R.bigfish.com) (207.46.51.80) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:03:04 +0000 Received: from outbound7-sin.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by outbound7-sin-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F821011C; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail131-sin-R.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.40.3]) by outbound7-sin.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEDCD48056; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail131-sin (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail131-sin-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4D01310342; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:03 +0000 (UTC) X-BigFish: VP X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: OrigIP: 163.181.251.8;Service: EHS Received: by mail131-sin (MessageSwitch) id 1196380923543935_12279; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:03 +0000 (UCT) Received: from ausb3extmailp01.amd.com (unknown [163.181.251.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail131-sin.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F263F1608086; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SAUSGW02.amd.com (sausgw02.amd.com [163.181.250.22]) by ausb3extmailp01.amd.com (Switch-3.2.7/Switch-3.2.7) with ESMTP id lAU02pk7019013; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:02:54 -0600 Received: from [163.181.22.102] by SAUSGW02.amd.com with ESMTP (AMD SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.1)); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:02:47 -0600 X-Server-Uuid: DF9F24A0-1A5C-40A5-8B0A-DEB676E72ECF Received: from sausexmb1.amd.com ([163.181.3.156]) by sausexbh2.amd.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:02:46 -0600 Received: from mmeissner-gold.amd.com ([165.204.57.57]) by sausexmb1.amd.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:02:38 -0600 Received: from mmeissner-gold.amd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mmeissner-gold.amd.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAU02cLg020163; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:02:38 -0500 Received: (from mmeissne@localhost) by mmeissner-gold.amd.com ( 8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id lAU02XBT020161; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:02:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:09:00 -0000 From: "Michael Meissner" To: "Aldy Hernandez" cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com, bonzini@gnu.org, rguenther@suse.de, matz@suse.de, christophe.harle@amd.com Subject: Re: PR33713: remove -fforce-addr Message-ID: <20071130000233.GA19742@mmeissner-gold.amd.com> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Meissner , Aldy Hernandez , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com, bonzini@gnu.org, rguenther@suse.de, matz@suse.de, christophe.harle@amd.com References: <20071129175051.GA12296@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20071129175051.GA12296@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-WSS-ID: 6B518CAC07S4026260-02-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg01686.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:50:51PM -0500, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Hi folks. > > I'm picking up this patch that Steven attached to the PR but didn't > submit to the list. The patch removes support for -fforce-addr. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33713 > > I have added a changelog, incorporated the change suggested by Paolo, > fixed a typo, and tested it on x86_64-linux. There are no regressions. > > Is this OK for mainline? > > PR33713 > * doc/invoke.texi: Remove -fforce-addr documentation. > * expr.c (emit_move_insn): Remove use of flag_force_addr. > (expand_expr_real_1): Same. > (do_tablejump): Same. > Call memory_address instead of memory_address_noforce. > * expr.h (memory_address_noforce): Remove prototype. > * explow.c (memory_address): Remove support for flag_force_addr. > (validize_mem): Same. > (memory_address_noforce): Remove. > * common.opt: Add dummy documentation for -fforce-addr. > * combine.c (can_combine_p): Remove -fforce-addr comment. > * config/cris/cris.h: Update CC1_SPEC comment with regards to > -fforce-addr. > (OPTIMIZATION_OPTIONS): Remove set of flag_force_addr. > * config/m68k/m68k.h (PIC_CASE_VECTOR_ADDRESS): Remove comment > relating to memory_address_noforce. > > * gcc.c-torture/compile/20050802-1.c: Remove. > * gcc.c-torture/compile/20011113-1.c: Remove. I'm coming in late to this. Given there were a few examples that were faster with -fforce-addr, do we want to remove it without trying to fix the code? I didn't see from the bug report that the slowdowns had been addressed. I also would prefer a deprecated switch get a warning, rather than silently accepting it. -- Michael Meissner, AMD 90 Central Street, MS 83-29, Boxborough, MA, 01719, USA michael.meissner@amd.com