public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com>
To: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com>
Cc: "Andre Vieira (lists)" <Andre.SimoesDiasVieira@arm.com>,
	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 16:02:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJA7tRZ93zT5Q2rkDzhqLpJLEhNbmRTiMZOivHegPT1+AJj__A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcec00b3-d46b-529b-84b5-bb661a0f811d@redhat.com>

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 04:34 PM, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>> Regardless, the other testcases I add in this patch show a sub-optimal
>> transformation done by postreload, turning direct calls into indirect
>> calls, for targets which have specifically pointed out that no CSE
>> should be done on functions through 'NO_FUNCTION_CSE'.
>
>
> What I'm wondering about is whether the patch wouldn't also prevent the
> opposite transformation. Is there a reason not to do that one? Can the
> problem be modeled by tweaking costs?

I really don't think we should have a solution that relies on costs
for correctness .

regards
Ramana

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-09 16:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-09 14:03 Andre Vieira (lists)
2016-12-09 15:02 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-12-09 15:34   ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2016-12-09 15:58     ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-12-09 16:02       ` Ramana Radhakrishnan [this message]
2016-12-09 16:16         ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2016-12-09 16:31           ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-12-09 17:22             ` [arm-embedded][committed] " Andre Vieira (lists)
2017-01-06 10:53             ` [PATCH] " Andre Vieira (lists)
2017-01-06 15:47               ` Jeff Law
2017-01-11 15:09                 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2016-12-12  9:05           ` Christophe Lyon
2016-12-20 16:48             ` [ARM][committed] Fix for PR78255-2.c testism for targets that do not optimize for tailcall Andre Vieira (lists)
2016-12-09 16:01   ` [PATCH] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE Jeff Law
2016-12-09 15:47 Wilco Dijkstra

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=CAJA7tRZ93zT5Q2rkDzhqLpJLEhNbmRTiMZOivHegPT1+AJj__A@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ramana.gcc@googlemail.com \
    --cc=Andre.SimoesDiasVieira@arm.com \
    --cc=bschmidt@redhat.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).