From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116208-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15585 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2005 17:18:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15464 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2005 17:17:50 -0000
Received: from topconrd.ru (HELO TopconRD.RU) (62.105.138.7)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:17:50 +0000
Received: from osv.topcon.com (ttc.topconrd.ru [62.105.138.5])
	by TopconRD.RU (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id j5KHHkL0026136;
	Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:17:46 +0400
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: How to replace -O1 with corresponding -f's?
References: <878y159mhr.fsf@osv.topcon.com>
	<17078.52477.408454.106678@zapata.pink>
	<44a7432710d6ca83042f60c9fbab58d9@physics.uc.edu>
	<87zmtl84eo.fsf@osv.topcon.com>
	<eaa48c604fe6058e897d807113d16097@physics.uc.edu>
	<87r7ex82ur.fsf@osv.topcon.com>
	<a4baf1b1fb19764a670afa80d385edd2@physics.uc.edu>
X-attribution: osv
From: Sergei Organov <osv@topconrd.ru>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:18:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <a4baf1b1fb19764a670afa80d385edd2@physics.uc.edu>
Message-ID: <87acll7xsa.fsf@osv.topcon.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00919.txt.bz2

Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:

> On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
> 
> > Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
> >
> >> On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
> >>
> >>> so SYMBOL_FLAG_SMALL (flags 0x6 vs 0x2) is somehow being missed when -O1
> 
> >>
> >>> is turned on. Seems to be something at tree-to-RTX conversion time.
> >>> Constant folding?
> >>
> >> No, it would mean that the target says that this is not a small data.
> >> Also try it with the following code and you will see there is no
> >> difference:
> 
> >>
> >>          double osvf() { return 314314314; }
> >
> > There is no difference in the sense that here both -O0 and -O1 behave
> > roughly the same. So the problem is with detecting "smallness" for true
> > constants by the target, right?
> 
> I think the bug is in rs6000_elf_in_small_data_p but since I have not
> debuged it yet I don't know for sure.

Well, provided that:

void
default_elf_select_rtx_section (enum machine_mode mode, rtx x,
				unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT align)
{
  /* ??? Handle small data here somehow.  */
  ...
}

is still there at varasm.c:5330, I don't think it's a target bug :(

-- 
Sergei.