From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: dje.gcc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: PING x2 Re: [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 10:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160707101627.GA20074@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160627235101.GF27655@gate.crashing.org>
Ping.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 06:51:01PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:47:31AM +0000, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > This patch series introduces separate shrink-wrapping.
> >
> > There are many things the prologue/epilogue of a function do, and most of
> > those things can be done independently. For example, most of the time,
> > for many targets, the save of callee-saved registers can be done later
> > than the "main" prologue.
> >
> > Doing so helps quite a bit because the prologue is expensive for functions
> > that do not need everything it does done for every path through the
> > function; often, the hot paths do not need much at all, e.g. not those
> > things the prologue needs to do for the function to call other functions.
> >
> > The first patch creates a command-line flag, some hooks, a status flag
> > ("is this function wrapped separately", used by later passes), and
> > documentation for these things.
> >
> > The next six patches are to prevent later passes from mishandling the
> > epilogue instructions that now appear before the epilogue: mostly, you
> > cannot do much to instructions with a REG_CFA_RESTORE note without
> > confusing dwarf2cfi. The cprop one is for prologue instructions.
> >
> > Then, the main patch. And finally a patch for PowerPC that implements
> > separate wrapping for GPRs and LR.
> >
> > Tested on powerpc64-linux (-m32/-m64, -mlra/-mno-lra), and on
> > powerpc64le-linux. Previous versions of this series also tested on
> > x86_64-linux.
> >
> > Is this okay for trunk?
> >
> >
> > Segher
> >
> >
> > Segher Boessenkool (9):
> > separate shrink-wrap: New command-line flag, status flag, hooks, and doc
> > cfgcleanup: Don't confuse CFI when -fshrink-wrap-separate
> > dce: Don't dead-code delete separately wrapped restores
> > regrename: Don't rename restores
> > regrename: Don't run if function was separately shrink-wrapped
> > sel-sched: Don't mess with register restores
> > cprop: Leave RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P instructions alone
> > shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate concerns
> > rs6000: Separate shrink-wrapping
> >
> > gcc/cfgcleanup.c | 5 +
> > gcc/common.opt | 4 +
> > gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c | 257 ++++++++++++++++--
> > gcc/dce.c | 9 +
> > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 11 +-
> > gcc/doc/tm.texi | 53 ++++
> > gcc/doc/tm.texi.in | 29 ++
> > gcc/emit-rtl.h | 4 +
> > gcc/function.c | 15 +-
> > gcc/regcprop.c | 3 +
> > gcc/regrename.c | 12 +-
> > gcc/sel-sched-ir.c | 1 +
> > gcc/shrink-wrap.c | 647 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > gcc/shrink-wrap.h | 1 +
> > gcc/target.def | 56 ++++
> > 15 files changed, 1088 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 1.9.3
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-07 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-08 1:48 Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:48 ` [PATCH 2/9] cfgcleanup: Don't confuse CFI when -fshrink-wrap-separate Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:48 ` [PATCH 1/9] separate shrink-wrap: New command-line flag, status flag, hooks, and doc Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:48 ` [PATCH 3/9] dce: Don't dead-code delete separately wrapped restores Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:53 ` [PATCH 6/9] sel-sched: Don't mess with register restores Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:53 ` [PATCH 4/9] regrename: Don't rename restores Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:54 ` [PATCH 7/9] cprop: Leave RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P instructions alone Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 1:54 ` [PATCH 5/9] regrename: Don't run if function was separately shrink-wrapped Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 9:18 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-09 18:41 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-09 20:56 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-09 23:12 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-10 6:59 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-12 16:36 ` Jeff Law
[not found] ` <CAGWvny=fHHZtKF4_D2098+3PTPPzxtg3EjKDWHyJwUxz8g_tEA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAGWvnymZVg_FR_PHqhwkgrAkHDntVMEiG4shfst_GA9OnZKvWg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAGWvnykQ3oz0UpcF6U1WYivbJww65h2EH5n3FocQ8JGY9hrOrA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-09-12 17:04 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 13:08 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 13:18 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-14 14:01 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 14:54 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-09-14 16:33 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 19:10 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 17:55 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 19:13 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 19:36 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 18:21 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 19:13 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 19:38 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 22:34 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-15 17:28 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-19 17:11 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-09-14 20:04 ` Jeff Law
2016-09-14 22:51 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 2:03 ` [PATCH 8/9] shrink-wrap: shrink-wrapping for separate concerns Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-15 12:42 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-18 16:34 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-18 17:03 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-19 14:46 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-19 14:49 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-19 15:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-20 11:23 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-20 15:06 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 2:04 ` [PATCH 9/9] rs6000: Separate shrink-wrapping Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 11:56 ` [PATCH 0/9] separate shrink-wrapping Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-08 12:45 ` Eric Botcazou
2016-06-08 15:16 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-08 16:43 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-08 17:26 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-29 23:06 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-29 23:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-04 8:57 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-14 21:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-08 10:42 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-08 12:11 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-08 13:16 ` David Malcolm
2016-07-08 13:45 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-08 14:35 ` Bill Schmidt
2016-06-09 16:12 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-09 19:57 ` Segher Boessenkool
2016-06-28 0:22 ` PING " Segher Boessenkool
2016-07-07 10:16 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
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=20160707101627.GA20074@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dje.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@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).