From: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
Cc: java-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Calls to built-in functions are not Binary Compatible
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <440C5D06.8030905@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17417.28490.265576.328548@zapata.pink>
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Bryce McKinlay writes:
> > Doesn't this disable builtins mechanism entirely when
> > -findirect-dispatch is used?
>
> Yes.
>
> > These builtins improve GCJ's performance significantly on some numeric
> > code (scimark, for example).
>
> So you don't use indirect dispatch, surely.
>
To not use indirect dispatch would make the benchmark rather artificial
- since most of the code we're running on libgcj these days uses the BC ABI.
> > Wouldn't it be better to fix whatever problem is causing direct
> > calls to be generated rather than disabling them completely?
>
> I don't understand your point -- this is the code that is causing
> direct calls to be made. Built-in functions in gcc either generate
> direct calls or they get replaced by inline code.
>
Surely it is a bug, rather than a feature of this code, that it is
causing direct (non-BC) calls to Java functions to be made. Direct calls
to gcc/libc internal functions or inlining code is another matter.
You could argue that it is not strictly "binary compatible" to inline,
say, Math.min() - but realistically, the Math.* functions are well
enough defined that they can always be safely inlined or converted to
direct OS calls - since they are pure functions, that read only their
arguments and do not depend on object layout and such.
Bryce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-06 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-01 18:29 Andrew Haley
2006-03-01 18:33 ` Andrew Pinski
2006-03-01 18:43 ` Andrew Haley
2006-03-01 22:36 ` Tom Tromey
2006-03-03 22:05 ` Bryce McKinlay
2006-03-04 10:41 ` Andrew Haley
2006-03-04 10:55 ` Andrew Haley
2006-03-06 18:49 ` Tom Tromey
2006-03-06 18:51 ` Andrew Haley
2006-03-06 16:02 ` Bryce McKinlay [this message]
2006-03-06 16:12 ` Andrew Haley
2006-03-06 19:03 ` Bryce McKinlay
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=440C5D06.8030905@redhat.com \
--to=mckinlay@redhat.com \
--cc=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=java-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).