From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15061 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2011 18:26:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 15052 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2011 18:26:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_IW,TW_LW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com (HELO mail3.caviumnetworks.com) (12.108.191.235) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:25:58 +0000 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.9]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,7,2,8378) id ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:26:53 -0700 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.9]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:25:57 -0700 Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([12.108.191.236]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:25:57 -0700 Message-ID: <4D825234.6080704@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:26:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "McCall, Ronald SIK" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Same cross-gcc toolchain on different hosts produces different target code? References: <21A301266F5A9F4C8347D252C108AE9D059981E1@UUSNWEG4.na.utcmail.com> <4D823F17.7040808@caviumnetworks.com> <21A301266F5A9F4C8347D252C108AE9D059981E4@UUSNWEG4.na.utcmail.com> In-Reply-To: <21A301266F5A9F4C8347D252C108AE9D059981E4@UUSNWEG4.na.utcmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 On 03/17/2011 11:20 AM, McCall, Ronald SIK wrote: >> If you let us in on what exactly the secret differences were, it would >> be easier to opine on this topic. > > Sure thing! Here is an instruction sequence from the original Solaris toolchain: > Resending to gcc@. I didn't really want a private message about it. > fe000230: 54 6a 87 be rlwinm r10,r3,16,30,31 > fe000234: 65 49 ff ff oris r9,r10,65535 > fe000238: 61 28 ff fc ori r8,r9,65532 > fe00023c: 6d 07 80 00 xoris r7,r8,32768 > fe000240: 3c 00 43 30 lis r0,17200 > fe000244: 90 e1 00 0c stw r7,12(r1) > fe000248: 90 01 00 08 stw r0,8(r1) > fe00024c: 3c 80 fe 14 lis r4,-492 > fe000250: c8 01 00 08 lfd f0,8(r1) > fe000254: 39 24 82 38 addi r9,r4,-32200<<< Instruction sequence #1 > fe000258: c8 89 00 00 lfd f4,0(r9)<<< (continued) > fe00025c: 74 60 00 08 andis. r0,r3,8 > fe000260: 3c c0 00 01 lis r6,1 > fe000264: fc 60 20 28 fsub f3,f0,f4<<< Instruction sequence #2 > fe000268: fc 40 18 18 frsp f2,f3 > fe00026c: fc 20 10 90 fmr f1,f2 > fe000270: fc 00 08 1e fctiwz f0,f1 > fe000274: d8 01 00 10 stfd f0,16(r1) > fe000278: 80 81 00 14 lwz r4,20(r1) > fe00027c: 98 86 8f 0d stb r4,-28915(r6) > fe000280: 41 82 00 cc beq- fe00034c > > Here is the same instruction sequence from the newly built Linux toolchain: > > fe000230: 54 6a 87 be rlwinm r10,r3,16,30,31 > fe000234: 65 49 ff ff oris r9,r10,65535 > fe000238: 61 28 ff fc ori r8,r9,65532 > fe00023c: 6d 07 80 00 xoris r7,r8,32768 > fe000240: 3c 00 43 30 lis r0,17200 > fe000244: 90 e1 00 0c stw r7,12(r1) > fe000248: 90 01 00 08 stw r0,8(r1) > fe00024c: 3c 80 fe 14 lis r4,-492 > fe000250: c8 01 00 08 lfd f0,8(r1) > fe000254: c9 a4 87 b0 lfd f13,-30800(r4)<<< Instruction sequence #1 > fe000258: fc 60 68 28 fsub f3,f0,f13<<< Instruction sequence #2 > fe00025c: 74 60 00 08 andis. r0,r3,8 > fe000260: 3c 80 00 01 lis r4,1 > fe000264: fc 40 18 18 frsp f2,f3 > fe000268: fc 20 10 90 fmr f1,f2 > fe00026c: fc 00 08 1e fctiwz f0,f1 > fe000270: d8 01 00 10 stfd f0,16(r1) > fe000274: 80 e1 00 14 lwz r7,20(r1) > fe000278: 98 e4 8f 0d stb r7,-28915(r4) > fe00027c: 41 82 00 c8 beq- fe000344 > > Instruction sequence #1 has been combined into a single equivalent instruction. Instruction sequence #2 moved. Register usage is also different but equivalent. > > Ron McCall