Current egcs, binutils and kernel (fwd)
paubert at iram.es
Wed Apr 21 07:26:01 EST 1999
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, David Edelsohn wrote:
> The purpose of my earlier message was to explain what was
> occurring in rs6000.md and why GCC was calling the function instead of
> inlining the code. I thought that some people might actually want to
> understand *WHY* the function was required and why GCC was behaving as
Ok, calm down. But I still don't know why GCC does not expand this inline.
It's 8 or 10 instructions, without branches so it's not much bigger than a
call for which you have to set up 3 parameter registers and which may
destroy many more registers according to the ABI conventions.
Furthermore if only one of the 2 result registers is needed, it may be
simplified quite significantly (i'm not sure it's easy to do in current
GCC to split a variable using 2 registers to remove dead code).
Maybe it's time to add the alternatives in rs6000.md, enabled with a
-minline-longlongshifts option. But I don't yet know enough of GCC to
[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]]
[[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]]
[[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting. ]]
More information about the Linuxppc-dev