From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8010 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2016 15:58:42 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7997 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2016 15:58:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*MI:sk:584ACF0, H*i:sk:584ACF0, H*f:sk:584ACF0 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 15:58:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FA2B624C0; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([10.36.126.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uB9FwbXn030458; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:58:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR78255: Make postreload aware of NO_FUNCTION_CSE To: "Andre Vieira (lists)" , GCC Patches References: <584AB9AA.6030800@arm.com> <334ff580-3e7d-22fb-83da-da18acd84244@redhat.com> <584ACF02.9070101@arm.com> From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 15:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <584ACF02.9070101@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00886.txt.bz2 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? > Would you prefer I create a new PR for the problem this is actually > fixing and refile this PATCH under that PR? Well, as long as you're working on fixing it I see no reason to clutter the bug database for the function cse issue, but do keep the existing PR open if there also ought to be register class changes. Bernd